Extra Dosed Bridges

University of South Florida
Scholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School
January 2012
On The Development Of The Extradosed Bridge

Concept
Steven Lynn Stroh
University of South Florida, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Civil Engineering Commons
Scholar Commons Citation

Stroh, Steven Lynn, "On The Development Of The Extradosed Bridge Concept" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4232
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
On the Development of the Extradosed Bridge Concept
by
Steven L. Stroh
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
College of Engineering
University of South Florida
Major Professor: Rajan Sen, Ph.D.

William Carpenter, Ph.D.
Autar Kaw, Ph.D.
Austin Gray Mullins, Ph.D.
Kandethody M. Ramachandran, Ph.D.
Date of Approval:
February 8, 2012
Keywords: Prestressed Concrete, External Prestress, Stay Cable, Fatigue, Aesthetics
Copyright © 2012, Steven L. Stroh

Dedication
This Dissertation is dedicated to Beth Stroh, my wife. She has provided care,
support, reassurance, inspiration, motivation, encouragement, patience and has been my
constant partner in the long adventure of completing this work.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to recognize and thank the Connecticut Department of
Transportation and Federal Highway Administration for funding the study tour of
Japanese Extradosed Bridges attended by the author in 2001.
An important part of the information used in preparing this dissertation came from
the design and construction of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New Haven,
Connecticut. The author would like to recognize the Federal Highway Administration and
the Connecticut Department of Transportation for permitting that information to be
utilized. The author would also like to thank and recognize the assistance of URS
Corporation, the designer of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, for making available the
detailed design information and for access to specialized computer software necessary to
analyze this bridge.
As with many large infrastructure construction projects, the design and
construction can extend over many years. For the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge this
time has spanned more than a decade, including unplanned delays. The author would also
like to acknowledge the patience of his graduate committee in allowing the necessary
time for the needed information to become available, and for their encouragement and
confidence that this dissertation would be eventually completed.

Table Of Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 “Extradosed” Concept Origination ............................................................. 1
1.2 Extradosed Bridges As A Unique Bridge Type ......................................... 4
1.3 The First Extradosed Bridge ...................................................................... 7
1.4 Definition Of The Extradosed Prestressed Bridge Concept ...................... 8
1.5 Current Status Of Extraosed Bridges World-Wide.................................. 11
1.6 Current Status Of Extraosed Bridges In The United States ..................... 14
1.7 Discussion ................................................................................................ 16
1.8 Objectives ................................................................................................ 18
1.9 Organization Of The Dissertation ............................................................ 18
Chapter 2: Representative Extradosed Bridges ................................................................. 19

2.1 General ..................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Odawara Port Bridge (Also Called Odawara Blueway Bridge) .............. 22
2.3 Shinkawa River Bridge ............................................................................ 31
2.4 Miyakodagawa Bridge ............................................................................. 37
2.5 Kiso And Ibi River Bridges ..................................................................... 44
2.6 Okuyama Bridge (Also Known As Shin-Karato Bridge) ........................ 55
2.7 Tsukuhara Bridge ..................................................................................... 62
2.8 Discussion ................................................................................................ 68
Chapter 3: Extradosed Bridge Design Parameters, Characteristics And Features ............ 71

3.1 General ..................................................................................................... 71
3.2 Introduction To The Behavior Of Extradosed Prestressed Bridges ......... 73
3.3 Materials .................................................................................................. 74
3.4 Extradosed Bridge Typical Span Lengths................................................ 77
3.5 Main Span/Side Span Ratio ..................................................................... 80
3.6 Multi-Span Extradosed Prestressed Bridges ............................................ 82
3.7 Extradosed Bridge Applicability To Curved Bridge Alignments ............ 85
3.8 Tower Height ........................................................................................... 87
3.9 Deck Depth/Haunch Arrangements ......................................................... 94
3.10 Bridge Deck Width .................................................................................. 99
3.11 Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 100
i
3.11.1 Stay Cable Configuration........................................................ 100
3.11.2 Stay Distribution ..................................................................... 102
3.11.3 Tower Configuration............................................................... 103
3.11.4 Other Architectural Features On Extradosed Bridges ............ 105
3.12 Summary ................................................................................................ 108
3.12.1 Materials ................................................................................. 108
3.12.2 Applicable Span Range ........................................................... 109
3.12.3 Main Span/Side Span Proportions .......................................... 110
3.12.4 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Multi-Span
Bridges .................................................................................... 110
3.12.5 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Curved Or Tapered
Bridge Alignments .................................................................. 111
3.12.6 Tower Height .......................................................................... 112
3.12.7 Girder Depth/Haunch Proportions .......................................... 112
3.12.8 Bridge Deck Width ................................................................. 113
3.12.9 Aesthetics ................................................................................ 113
Chapter 4: Stay Cable Design Issues ............................................................................... 115

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 115
4.2 Fatigue Performance Of Individual Seven-Wire Prestressing Strand.... 116
4.3 Current Stay-Cable Design Criteria For Cable Stayed Bridges ............. 122
4.4 Current Stay Design Criteria For Extradosed Bridges ........................... 125
4.5 Extradosed Bridge Design Approach Based On Single Element
Acceptance Criteria................................................................................ 129
4.6 Cable-Stayed Bridge Fatigue Testing .................................................... 135
4.7 Consideration For Extradosed Bridge Cable Fatigue Testing –
Individual Tensile Element Test ............................................................ 138
4.8 Extradosed Bridge Cable Fatigue Testing – Assembled Cable Test ..... 140
4.9 Stay Anchorages .................................................................................... 146
4.10 Saddles ................................................................................................ 147
4.11 Stay Corrosion Protection ...................................................................... 149
4.12 Cable Dynamics/Vibration Issues/Damping .......................................... 150
4.13 Summary ................................................................................................ 151
Chapter 5: Prototype Design ........................................................................................... 153

5.1 Introduction/Goals ................................................................................. 153
5.2 Concept Development And Prototype Description................................ 155
5.3 Design Parameters, Characteristics And Features ................................. 161
5.3.1 Materials ................................................................................. 161
5.3.2 Main Span Length ................................................................... 165
5.3.3 Main Span/Side Span Ratio .................................................... 165
5.3.4 Applicability To Curved And/Or Tapered Alignment ............ 167
5.3.5 Erection Method ..................................................................... 168
5.3.6 Tower Height .......................................................................... 172
5.3.7 Deck Depth/Haunch Arrangement .......................................... 172
5.3.8 Bridge Deck Width And Selection Of Girder Cross Section.. 173
ii
5.3.9 Tower Shape ........................................................................... 175
5.3.10 Stay Cable Arrangement ......................................................... 178
5.3.11 Aesthetics ................................................................................ 179
5.4 Stay Cable Design (Using Single-Element Strand Criteria) .................. 181
5.5 Stay Cable Design (Using Variable Φ Factor) ...................................... 187
5.6 Stay Cable Design (Using Single Element Strand Criteria With
Variable Φ Factor) ................................................................................. 188
5.7 Aerodynamic Considerations ................................................................. 190
5.8 Discussion .............................................................................................. 193
Chapter 6: Conclusions And Recommendations ............................................................. 196

6.1 Objectives Of This Dissertation ............................................................. 196
6.2 An Assessment Of Representative Extradosed Bridges That Have
Been Constructed ................................................................................... 197
6.3 Extradosed Bridge System Parameters, Characteristics And Features .. 200
6.3.1 Materials ................................................................................. 201
6.3.2 Applicable Span Range ........................................................... 202
6.3.3 Main Span/Side Span Proportions .......................................... 203
6.3.4 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Multi-Span
Bridges .................................................................................... 203
6.3.5 Applicability of Extradosed Bridges To Curved Or Tapered
Bridge Alignments .................................................................. 204
6.3.6 Tower Height .......................................................................... 205
6.3.7 Girder Depth/Girder Haunch Proportions............................... 205
6.3.8 Bridge Deck Width ................................................................. 206
6.3.9 Aesthetics ................................................................................ 206
6.4 Proposed Stray Cable Design Criteria ..................................................... 207
6.5 Application Of The Criteria And Recommendations To A Prototype
Design ...................................................................................................... 208
6.6 Concluding Remarks And Future Opportunities ..................................... 210
References ............................................................................................................... 213
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 221

Appendix A: Database Of Existing Extradosed Bridge Proportioning And
Design Parameters ............................................................................................... 222
Appendix B: Calculation Summary For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge ............ 230
Appendix C: 3rd Party Authorizations ................................................................. 245
About The Author .................................................................................................. End Page
iii
List Of Tables
Table 1-1: Extradosed Highway Bridges Worldwide ..................................................... 12
Table 2-1: Project Data For Odawara Port Bridge .......................................................... 30
Table 2-2: Project Data For Shinkawa River Bridge ...................................................... 36
Table 2-3: Project Data For Miyakodagawa Bridge ....................................................... 43
Table 2-4: Project Data For Kiso River Bridge ............................................................... 51
Table 2-5: Project Data For Ibi River Bridge .................................................................. 53
Table 2-6: Project Data For Okuyama Bridge ................................................................. 60
Table 2-7: Project Data For Tsukuhara Bridge ............................................................... 67
Table 4-1: Single Element Fatigue Test At 0.55 f’s Maximum Stress.......................... 131
Table 4-2: Summary Of Stress Ranges For Single Element Fatigue Tests ................... 136
Table 4-3: Test Results For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Cable Testing .................. 142
Table A-1: Database Of Existing Extradosed Bridge Proportioning And Design

Parameters .................................................................................................... 222
Table B-1: Unfactored Cable Forces for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge –
Cable Plane A .............................................................................................. 232
Table B-2: Unfactored Cable Load Groups and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge – Cable Plane A ............................................................................... 233
Cable Plane B............................................................................................... 234
Bridge – Cable Plane B ................................................................................ 235
Cable Plane C............................................................................................... 236
iv
Bridge – Cable Plane C ................................................................................ 237
Cable Plane D .............................................................................................. 238
Bridge – Cable Plane D ...........................................................................................239
Table B-9: Factored Load Groups, Phi Factors and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge – Cable Plane A ...........................................................................................240
Bridge – Cable Plane B ...........................................................................................241
Bridge – Cable Plane C ...........................................................................................242
Bridge – Cable Plane D ...........................................................................................243
v
List Of Figures
Figure 1-1: Ironton Russell Cable-Stayed Bridge (900 Foot Main Span)......................... 1
Figure 1-2: Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge (890 Foot Main Span) .................................... 1
Figure 1-3: First Generation Of External Post Tensioning In A Concrete Box Girder
Bridge ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 1-4: Arch Terminology .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-5: Bridge Terminology ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-6: Span Range For Common Bridge Types ........................................................ 6
Figure 1-7: Barton Creek Fin-Back Bridge ....................................................................... 7
Figure 1-8: Ganter Bridge, Switzerland ............................................................................ 7
Figure 1-9: The Odawara Port Bridge, Japan. The World’s First Extradosed
Prestressed Bridge .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-10: Comparison Of Bending Moments For Different Bridge Types .................... 9
Figure 1-11: Number Of Extradosed Prestressed Highway Bridges By Country ............. 11
Figure 1-12: Progression Of Constructed Extradosed Prestressed Bridges Per Year ....... 13
Figure 1-13: Computer Image Of The Completed Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge,
New Haven, Connecticut .............................................................................. 14
Figure 1-14: Author At Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge On September 16, 2011,
Showing Construction Progress ................................................................... 15
Figure 1-15: Image Of Planned St. Croix Extradosed Prestressed Bridge ........................ 16
Figure 2-1: Bridges Visited By Delegation ..................................................................... 21
Figure 2-2: Odawara Port Bridge .................................................................................... 22
Figure 2-3: Saddle Arrangement At The Top Of Tower ................................................. 24
vi
Figure 2-4: Odawara Port Bridge Elevation View .......................................................... 24
Figure 2-5: Typical Section ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 2-6: The Essence Of The Extradosed Bridge Concept Is Expressed In Its
Structural Form – A Girder Bridge Witrh External Prestressing ................. 27
Figure 2-7: Color Grading Of The Stay Cable Sheathing ............................................... 28
Figure 2-8: Shinkawa River Bridge Under Construction ................................................ 31
Figure 2-9: Image Of Completed Shinkawa River Bridge .............................................. 31
Figure 2-10: Shinkawa River Bridge Elevation View ...................................................... 32
Figure 2-11: Form Traveler For Girder Casting ................................................................ 33
Figure 2-12: Girder Cross-Section .................................................................................... 33
Figure 2-13: Saddle Mock-Up ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 2-14: Mock-Up Of Stay Cable Anchorage ............................................................ 35
Figure 2-15: Miyakodagawa Bridge.................................................................................. 37
Figure 2-16: Miyakodagawa Bridge Elevation View........................................................ 38
Figure 2-17: Typical Section ............................................................................................. 39
Figure 2-18: Completed Towers........................................................................................ 40
Figure 2-19: Ibi River Bridge (Kiso Bridge Similar) ........................................................ 44
Figure 2-20: Hybrid Span Layout ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 2-21: Concrete Grider Typical Section .................................................................. 45
Figure 2-22: Steel Orthotropic Girder Typical Section ..................................................... 47
Figure 2-23: Stay Details At Deck Level Showing Cover For Rubber Dampers ............. 48
Figure 2-24: Tower Suggesting A “Sail-Shape” ............................................................... 50
Figure 2-25: Author At Okuyama Bridge, Kobe ............................................................... 55
Figure 2-26: Okuyama Bridge Typical Section ................................................................ 56
Figure 2-27: Stay Anchorage Detail .................................................................................. 57
vii
Figure 2-28: Typical Tower Layout .................................................................................. 59
Figure 2-29: Tsukhuara Bridge ......................................................................................... 62
Figure 2-30: Tsukhuara Bridge Elevation View ............................................................... 63
Figure 2-31: Girder Typical Section ................................................................................. 64
Figure 2-32: Tsukhuara Bridge Tower .............................................................................. 66
Figure 3-1: Main Span Length For Extradosed Bridges Worldwide .............................. 79
Figure 3-2: Span Range For Common Bridge Types ...................................................... 80
Figure 3-3: Correction Of Span Length For Two-Span Cable Stayed Bridges .............. 81
Figure 3-4: Rion-Antirion Bridge In Greece – Multi-Span Cable Stayed Bridge

With Stiff Towers ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-5: Ting Kau Bridge In Hong Kong – Multi-Span Cable Stayed Bridge
With Crossing Cable From Central Tower................................................... 84
Figure 3-6: Ibi River Bridge In Japan, A Multi-Span Extradosed Prestressed Bridge ... 84
Figure 3-7: Torsional Demand On Bridge Cross Section Due To Vertical Loads ......... 85
Figure 3-8: Stay Force In A Cable Stayed Bridge .......................................................... 88
Figure 3-9: Prestress Action On Girder Bridge ............................................................... 89
Figure 3-10: Prestress Action On Extradosed Bridge ....................................................... 89
Figure 3-11: Assumed Distribution Of Stay Cables Along Span ...................................... 90
Figure 3-12: Tower Height To Main Span Ratios (H/L) For The Population Of
Existing Extradosed Prestressed Bridges ..................................................... 93
Figure 3-13: Plot Of Depth/Span Ratio As A Function Of Span Length .......................... 96
Figure 3-14: Plot Of Depth/Span Ratio As A Function Of Span Length

(300-600 Foot Spans) .................................................................................. 96
Figure 3-15: Extradosed Bridge Deck Widths For The Population Of Existing
Bridges.......................................................................................................... 98
Figure 3-16: Narrow Bridge Deck Extradosed Bridge ...................................................... 99
viii
Figure 3-17: Wide Deck Extradosed Bridge ..................................................................... 99
Figure 3-18: Ibi River Bridge With One Plane Of Stay Cables ...................................... 101
Figure 3-19: Odawara Blueway Bridge With Two Planes Of Stay Cables..................... 101
Figure 3-20: Miyakodagawa Bridge With Three Planes Of Stay Cables ........................ 102
Figure 3-21: Tsukuhara Bridge With Fan Arrangement Of Stay Cables ........................ 102
Figure 3-22: Sunniberg Bridge With Harp Cable Arrangement ..................................... 103
Figure 3-23: Tsukuhara Bridge Towers .......................................................................... 104
Figure 3-24: Ibi River Bridge Tower, Japan ................................................................... 104
Figure 3-25: Rittoh Bridge Tower, Japan ........................................................................ 105
Figure 3-26: Entry Markers For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge .................................... 106
Figure 3-27: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Aesthetic Lighting .................................... 107
Figure 3-28: Color Graded Stay Cables For The Odawara Blueway Bridge, Japan ....... 107
Figure 4-1: Stress Range Versus Number Of Cycles For Structural Steel
(S-N Curve) ............................................................................................... 118
Figure 4-2: S-N Curve For A Seven-Wire Single-Strand Stressed To A Maximum

Stress Of 0.45 F’s ....................................................................................... 119
Figure 4-3: S-N Curve For Seven-Wire Strand At A Maximum Stress Of 0.6 f’s,
From Various Literature Sources ............................................................... 121
Figure 4-4: PTI Fatigue Safety Philosophy For Stay Cables Of 7-Wire Strand ........... 123
Figure 4-5: Variable Φ Factor For Total LL+W/MUTS Ratios Less Than 7.5% ......... 127
Figure 4-6: S-N Curve For Single Element 7-Wire Strand For Various Tested
Maximum Stress Levels ............................................................................. 131
Figure 4-7: Allowable Fatigue Stress Range As A Function Of Maximum Strand

Stress For 2 Million Cycle Stress Range .................................................... 132
Figure 4.8: Allowable Fatigue Stress Range As A Function Of Φ Factor For

2 Million Cycle Stress Range ..................................................................... 134
Figure 4.9: Stay Cable Test Set-Up For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge...................... 141
ix
Figure 4-10: Single Element Seven-Wire Strand S-N Curves At 0.6 f’s ........................ 145
Figure 5-1: Existing I-95 Bridge Over Quinnipiac River, New Haven, CT ................. 155
Figure 5-2: Computer Image Of The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge .......................... 159
Figure 5-3: Computer Image Of The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Adjacent
Tomlinson Bridge Removed From View For Clarity) ............................... 160
Figure 5-4: Composite Steel Girder Cross Section ....................................................... 163
Figure 5-5: All-Concrete Girder Cross Section............................................................. 164
Figure 5-6: Bridge Erection Sequence .......................................................................... 169
Figure 5-7: Assumed Form Traveler For Casting Girder Segments ............................. 171
Figure 5-8: Twin-Deck Arrangement ............................................................................ 174
Figure 5-9: Girder Cross Section Details ...................................................................... 174
Figure 5-10: Method Of Transverse Load Transfer From Girder Webs To Stay
Cables ......................................................................................................... 175
Figure 5-11: Tower Cross Sections ................................................................................. 176
Figure 5-12: Tower Leg Cross Section (Section A-A).................................................... 177
Figure 5-13: Tower View From Roadway ...................................................................... 177
Figure 5-14: Elevation View Showing Stay Cable Arrangement ................................... 178
Figure 5-15: Sketch Of Visual Form Of Piers And Towers ............................................ 180
Figure 5-16: Entry Markers At Beginning Of The Bridge .............................................. 180
Figure 5-17: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Aesthetic Lighting .................................... 181
Figure 5-18: RM2000 Computer Model Of Bridge ........................................................ 182
Figure 5-19: Detailed Computer Sequencing Of The Erection Stages ........................... 183
Figure 5-20: Maximum Stay Stress For Group I Loading .............................................. 185
Figure 5-21: Determination Of Maximum Allowable Strand Stress Based On A

Fatigue Demand Of 4.9 KSI ....................................................................... 186
Figure 5-22: Wind Tunnel Model ................................................................................... 191
x
Figure B-1: RM2000 Model of Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge .................................... 230
Figure B-2: Stay Cable Numbering Scheme for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge .......... 231
Figure C-1: Exhibit A .................................................................................................... 246
Figure C-2: Exhibit B..................................................................................................... 247
Figure C-3: Exhibit C..................................................................................................... 248
Figure C-4: Exhibit D .................................................................................................... 249
Figure C-5: Exhibit E ..................................................................................................... 250
Figure C-6: Exhibit F ..................................................................................................... 251
Figure C-7: Exhibit G .................................................................................................... 252
Figure C-8: Exhibit H .................................................................................................... 253
Figure C-9: Exhibit I ...................................................................................................... 254
Figure C-10: Exhibit J ...................................................................................................... 256
Figure C-11: Exhibit K .................................................................................................... 259
xi
Abstract
The Extradosed Prestressed Bridge represents a relatively new bridge type. The
first of this type bridge was constructed in Japan in 1994, and Japan has since built at
least 29 examples of this bridge type. Throughout the rest of the world, another 34 of this
bridge type have been built, with most countries having only one, or at most a few,
examples. A broader application of this bridge type has been hampered by lack of design
information and in particular lack design criteria for the stay cables. The purpose of this
dissertation is to progress the understanding and application of this bridge type by
providing (1) a summary and discussion of extradosed bridges constructed worldwide, (2)
an assessment and recommendations on proportioning parameters, characteristics and
features of extradosed prestressed bridges, and (3) a contribution of a new design
approach for the stay-cable design for extradosed prestressed bridges. Also presented is
an application of the above to a real-world prototype design to assess and comment on
the application of the recommended proportioning parameters, characteristics, features
and the new approach to stay cable design criteria.
xii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 “Extradosed” Concept Origination
The introduction of “extradosed prestressed bridges” is a new and exciting
development in bridge engineering, extending the application of prestressed concrete
bridge principles into new areas. The extradosed prestressed bridge has the appearance
of a cable stayed bridge with “short” towers, but behaves structurally closer to a
prestressed girder bridge with external prestressing. See Figures 1-1 and 1-2. The
extradosed prestressed bridge in essence provides a transition structure type between
conventional prestressed girder bridges and cable stayed bridges.
Figure 1-1: Ironton Russell Cable- Figure 1-2: Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge
Stayed Bridge (900 Foot Main Span) (890 Foot Main Span). (Photo By Author)
(Image Courtesy URS Corporation)
Early post tensioned concrete bridges placed the prestressing tendons within the
concrete cross section, that is, within the webs of the box girder or within the top or
bottom flanges. The past 50 years has seen continued development in prestressed
1
concrete bridges. One of the major themes in recent years has been towards lightening of
the structure by the use of external prestress – where the prestressing tendons are placed
external to the cross-section of the concrete element. In what can be considered as the
first generation of external prestressing is to place the prestressing tendons external to the
concrete, but within the open cell of a concrete box girder cross section, as shown in
Figure 1-3. This concept offers several advantages to conventional prestress that is
placed within the concrete cross section. It simplifies casting of the concrete and allows
thinner sections since the tendon ducts do not need to be accommodated in the concrete
webs or slabs. It makes it possible to inspect and replace a tendon that is damaged or
corroded. Cracking of the concrete also has no effect on the prestressing steels,
improving long term durability (Podolny, 1982).
External Post-Tensioning
Figure 1-3: First Generation Of External Post-Tensioning In A Concrete Box Girder

Bridge
2
The development of the extradosed prestressed bridge concept is a second
generation external prestrssed bridge concept that takes the idea of external prestress to
the next logical step. The name extradosed comes from the French word extradosssé,
which is derived from the Latin roots extra, beyond, and dorsum, back. In architecture for
example, extrados can represent the upper convex surface of an arch or vault (Figure 1-
4). In the context of an extrados prestressed bridge, the prestressing is external to the
concrete (Figure 1-5).
The earliest documented discussion of an extradosed prestressed bridge concept in
the literature is by Jaques Mathivat in a 1988 FIP Journal article, “Recent Developments
in Prestressed Concrete Bridges” (Mathivat, 1988). Mathivat describes a cable layout
scheme consisting of two types of prestress for box girder type bridges erected in a
balanced cantilever technique:
Figure 1-4: Arch Terminology Figure 1-5: Bridge Terminology
Semi-horizontal prestress internal to the concrete and arranged within the area of
the upper flange of the deck and countering the cantilever moments, and
Prestress external to the concrete but within the concrete box girder void, placed
after mid-span closure, running from pier diaphragm to pier diaphragm and
deviated by means of special arrangements and countering the positive moments.
3
This type of system represents a mixed system, with a combination of internal and
external prestress. Mathivat proposed to substitute for the first type of prestress, cables
placed above the running surface of the deck and deviated by stub columns or towers
above the deck. He calls this type of construction “extradosed prestress”, and suggests
that this type of construction would offer an economical transition between traditional
concrete box girder structures built by cantilevering, and cable-stayed bridges.
The extradosed prestressed concept provides several potential advantages for
bridges of a transitional span length between the conventional girder bridges and cable-
stayed bridges:
Prestress material savings compared to a conventional girder bridge, as a
consequence to the larger eccentricity and more effective use of prestress.
The deviator columns for the extradosed prestressed ridges are lower that the
towers on a stay cable bridge, and are easier and cheaper to construct
Extradosed cables are not subject to the relatively large fatigue loading that
traditional cable stays are subject to. This means that extradosed cables can be
stressed to near the same values as conventional prestress, unlike traditional stay
cables that must be stressed to reduced levels to assure adequate fatigue
performance.
1.2 Extradosed Bridges As A Unique Bridge Type
Bridges are commonly classified into a relatively few categories by the way they
carry their principal loads.
4
Beam bridges, which carry their loads through flexure, or bending of the beam.
Truss bridges which carry loads primarily through axial tension or compression of
the individual truss members.
Arch bridges, which carry their loads primarily through compression in the arch
chord.
Suspension bridges with carry their load through a catenary cable
Cable-stayed bridges, which carry their load by multiple stay cables in direct
tension.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its National Bridge Inventory
System (NBIS) catalogues bridges into these categories, and with this data one can
summarize the typical span range for each bridge type (Figure 1-6) (Poldony 1994).
These are not absolute limits of the span ranges for these bridge types, but represent what
can be considered the “economical” span range based on the inventory of existing bridges
in the U.S. It is noted that there is in general a trend to push these values to the right,
with improved materials and analysis methods, striving for longer spans for each bridge
type.
There is only a small overlap between the girder bridge type and the truss, arch
and cable stayed bridges, meaning that at the upper end of economical girder bridges, we
are at the lower end of the longer-span bridge options that include arch, truss and cable-
stayed bridges. Engineers are constantly striving for opportunities to extend the
economical span range for girder bridges, or for alternative bridge types that fill this gap,
providing an economical bridge type in the 400-600 foot span range. One such
opportunity is the extradosed prestressed bridge, which through the use of external
5
prestressing provides a more efficient structural system and allows girder bridges to
economically provode longer spans in the 300 to 600 foot range.
Figure 1-6: Span Range For Common Bridge Types. Adapted From Poldony, 1994.
There are other variations on girder bridges that have also endeavored to extend
the span length for girder type bridges. These include “finback” type bridges, such as the
Barton Creek Bridge near Austin Texas (Figure 1-7), and bridges with external cables
encased in concrete, such as the Ganter Bridge in Switzerland (Figure 1-8). These bridge
types have the stays encased in concrete and exhibit different behavior under live loads,
as compared to behavior of an extradosed prestressed bridge, where the stays are un-
encased. These bridge types will not be considered as part of this study.
6
Figure 1-7: Barton Creek Fin-Back Figure 1-8: Ganter Bridge, Switzerland
Bridge (Photo Courtesy Todd Wilson, (Photo Courtesy Structurae.De,
Bridgemapper.Com) Photographer Nicolas Janberg)
1.3 The First Extradosed Bridge
The Odawara Port Bridge (sometimes called the Odawara Blueway Bridge) was
completed in 1994, and was the first constructed extradosed prestressed bridge in the
world (Shirono, 1993). A 400 foot main span was required at this bridge location in order
to provide sufficient navigation clearances. Bridge types appropriate for this span length
that were studied at this location included a conventional rigid frame girder bridge, a
cable-stayed bridge, and a more cutting-edge design, an extradosed prestressed.
The extradosed prestressed design had several advantages for this location
including:
Provided local landmark and “gateway” to the port, similar to a cable stayed
bridge, but at a lower cost as compared to a cable stayed bridge.
Provided a lower cost compared to a girder bridge, when considering the
total cost (which included the required raising of the bridge elevation to
provide for the deeper girder of a conventional rigid frame girder bridge).
Provided superior appearance to a conventional rigid frame girder bridge.
7
Figure 1-9: The Odawara Port Bridge, Japan. The World’s First Extradosed
Prestressed Bridge (Photo By Author).
Although no examples of this bridge type had been built, the Japan Highway
Public Corporation made a bold decision in selecting this bridge type for the Odawara
Port Bridge. Figure 1-9 shows the completed bridge, photographed by the author during a
study tour of extradosed bridges in Japan in September 2001.
1.4 Definition Of The Extradosed Prestressed Bridge Concept
Mathivat, in his 1988 article referenced in Section 1.1, makes the fundamental
distinction that extrados prestress cables are different than cable stays since their basic
role is to provide horizontal prestress to the deck and not to develop elastic vertical
actions, as is the case for traditional cable stays. Figure 1-10 that shows a schematic
moment diagram for a conventional girder bridge constructed in cantilever. The moment
is a typical cantilever moment from self-weight, modified by the opposing prestress
moment.
8
Moment
Moment
Girder Bridge Moment Cable Stayed Bridge Extradosed Bridge
Figure 1-10: Comparison Of Bending Moments For Different Bridge Types
In the case of a cable stayed bridge, the stay cables provide elastic vertical support
at each cable location that essentially balances the superstructure dead load between the
stays. In this case prestress is applied to essentially counteract the dead load moments,
and to allow a margin for live loads. In the case of an extradosed prestressed bridge the
external cables favorably modify the moment diagram, greatly reducing the demand for
supplemental prestressing and allowing a smaller negative moment at the pier location,
and consequently, a shallower superstructure depth. The girder is still designed as a
flexural element, but as one with prestress acting at a large eccentricity and with smaller
moment demand.
The definition of an extradosed prestressed bridge must make a fundamental
distinction from a cable stayed bridge and from a girder bridge in the structural behavior.
Mathivat, in his paper proposing the extradosed bridge as an alternative bridge concept
suggested that the tower height as a differentiating feature between the two bridge types.
Cable stayed bridges were defined by tower height (H) to span (L) ratios of H/L of
approximately 1/5. He suggested that extradosed prestressed bridges are defined by H/L
ratio of approximately 1/15.

9
Ogawa and Kasuga in their paper “Extrados Bridges in Japan” (Ogawa, 1998)
suggests that the definition of an extradosed prestressed bridge can be defined by a
stiffness ratio between stay cables and the girders. They define this ratio by β:
This ratio, β, was plotted for several examples of cable stayed bridge and
extradosed prestressed bridges to establish a boundary between the two bridge types.
Based on this representation, a boundary of β=30% is recommended between cable
stayed and extradosed prestressed bridges (β<30% represents a extradosed prestressed
bridge), with the consequence that for cable stayed bridges the stays are designed to a
maximum allowable tensile strength of 0.4 fpu (where fpu is the ultimate tensile strength
of the cable) and for extradosed prestressed bridges a value of 0.6 fpu may be used.
More recently in Japan, a direct design method for stay cables is allowed in the
design code that varies the allowable tensile strength for the stay cable based on the
fatigue demand (Kasuga, 2006). Kasuga notes that this knowledge is reflected in the
Japanese Specifications for Design and Construction of Cable-Stayed Bridges and
Extradosed Bridges, but this reference is only available in the Japanese language. This
method does not strive to define an extradosed bridge, but provides a transition between
an extradosed bridge cable and a stay cable.
In general, there is no widely accepted definition of extradosed prestressed
bridges, and with the exception of Japan, there are no widely accepted design rules in the
codes that provide design standards for this bridge type.
10
1.5 Current Status Of Extradosed Bridges World-Wide
During the period from 1994 to 2010 more than 60 extradosed prestressed
highway bridges in 26 countries were constructed or are under construction (Figure 1-
11). Japan is by far the most advanced in this technology, with 29 extradosed prestressed
highway bridges constructed during this period.
Figure 1-11: Number Of Extradosed Prestressed Highway Bridges By Country
11
Table 1-1: Extradosed Highway Bridges Worldwide
Completion Main Span No.
Bridge Name Year Country (ft.) Spans Status
1 Odawara Blueway Bridge 1994 Japan 400 3 Completed
2 Tsukuhara Bridge 1997 Japan 590 3 Completed
3 Kanisawa Bridge 1998 Japan 590 3 Completed
4 Shin-Karato Bridge 1998 Japan 459 3 Completed
5 Sunniberg Bridge 1998 Switzerland 459 5 Completed
6 Pont de Saint-Remy-de-maurienne 1999 France 172 2 Completed
7 Mitanigawa Bridge 1999 Japan 304 2 Completed
8 Second Mandaue-Mactan bridge 1999 Philippines 607 3 Completed
9 Shikari Bridge 2000 Japan 459 5 Completed
10 Matakina Bridge 2000 Japan 359 2 Completed
11 Sajiki Bridge 2000 Japan 344 3 Completed
12 Yukizawa Bridge 2000 Japan 233 3 Completed
13 Surikamigawa Bridge 2000 Japan 276 1 Completed
14 Pakse Bridge 2000 Laos 469 5 Completed
15 Hozu Bridge 2001 Japan 328 6 Completed
16 Nakanoike Bridge 2001 Japan 197 2 Completed
17 Miyakoda River Bridge 2001 Japan 436 2 Completed
18 Kiso River Bridge 2001 Japan 902 5 Completed
19 Ibi River Bridge 2001 Japan 891 6 Completed
20 Shinkawa Bridge 2002 Japan 426 5 Completed
21 Fukaura Bridge 2002 Japan 295 5 Completed
22 Sashikubo Bridge 2002 Japan 374 2 Completed
23 Koror-Babeldaob Bridge 2002 Palau 810 3 Completed
24 Deba River Bridge 2003 Spain 216 3 Completed
25 Shin-Meisei Bridge 2004 Japan 401 3 Completed
26 Himi Bridge 2004 Japan 590 3 Completed
27 Matakina Bridge 2004 Japan 357 2 Completed
28 Tatekoshi Bridge 2004 Japan 185 2 Completed
29 Tobiuo 2004 Japan 426 5 Completed
30 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge 2005 Brazil 361 3 Completed
31 Rittoh Bridge 2005 Japan 558 9 Completed
32 Sannohe Bridge 2005 Japan 656 3 Completed
33 Pyung-Yeo 2 Bridge 2005 South Korea 394 3 Completed
34 Rio Branco third Bridge 2006 Brazil 295 3 Completed
35 Homeland Bridge 2006 Croatia 394 3 Completed
36 Korong Extradosed Bridge 2006 Hungary 203 2 Completed
37 Yanagawa Bridge 2006 Japan 429 2 Completed
38 Tagami Bridge 2006 Japan 263 2 Completed
39 Tokuyama Bridge 2006 Japan 721 3 Completed
40 Nanchiku Bridge 2006 Japan 361 3 Completed
41 Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge 2006 Laos 361 6 Completed
42 Kack-Hwa First Bridge 2006 South Korea 377 3 Completed
43 Nymburk Bypass Bridge 2007 Czech Republic 433 3 Completed
44 Bridge of the European Union 2007 Poland 262 3 Completed
45 Puh Bridge 2007 Slovenia 328 3 Completed
46 Shindae Bridge 2007 South Korea 256 4 Completed
47 Second Vivekananda Bridge 2008 India 361 7 Completed
48 Riga South Bridge 2008 Latvia 361 9 Completed
49 Kum Ga Bridge 2008 South Korea 410 7 Completed
50 Cho-Rack Bridge 2008 South Korea 426 5 Completed
51 Ma-Tsu Bridge 2008 Taiwan 406 2 Completed
52 Trois-Bassins 2008 France 344 3 Completed
53 Catumbela Bridge 2009 Angola 525 3 Completed
54 Karnaphuli Bridge 2009 Bangladesh 656 6 Completed
55 Golden Ears 2009 Canada 793 5 Completed
56 Xianshen River Bridge 2009 China 446 2 Completed
57 Keong-An Bridge 2009 Korea 886 3 Completed
58 Orkojahuira Bridge 2010 Bolivia 337 3 Completed
59 Choqueyapu Bridge 2010 Bolivia 303 3 Completed
60 Kantutani Bridge 2010 Bolivia 372 3 Completed
61 Povazska Bystrica D1 Motorway Viaduct 2010 Slovakia 361 3 Completed
62 La Massana Bridge 2012 Andorra NA 2 Under Construction
63 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge 2012 USA 515 3 Under Construction
12
Table 1 provides a summary of the extradosed prestressed highway bridges either
completed or under construction between 1994 and 2012. This list is likely not all-
inclusive, in that information regarding bridge construction in several countries is not
widely available. Several other bridges are in the planning stage, and are not included
here. Also not included are extradosed bridges that are for railway loading, pedestrian
only loading or pipeline bridges, since their loading and proportioning would not
necessarily representative of highway loading that is the subject of this study.
Figure 1-12 graphs the number of extradosed prestressed bridges constructed
word-wide per year. There is an increasing trend in construction of this bridge type,
which is consistent with what may be expected for introduction of a new and untested
bridge type. The dissemination of design information, experience and standards for any
new structural concept requires some time, and an increasing growth pattern indicates
that this is a viable bridge type that should have continued application world-wide.
Figure 1-12: Progression Of Constructed Extradosed Prestressed Bridges Per Year
13
1.6 Current Status Of Extradosed Bridges In The United States.
The technical development of extradosed bridges in Japan has been closely
followed in the United States. In 1997 a 3-country scanning tour of Asian bridge
structures reported on Japan’s innovative extradosed bridge technology noting that this
bridge type is an evolution beyond U.S. practice and may have future application in the
United States (TranScan, 1998). In 2001 a study team traveled to Japan (including the
author) to gain information for the design of the first example of this bridge type in the
United States, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New Haven, Connecticut (Chilstrom,
2001). This bridge will carry I-95 over the Quinnipiac River and was designed by URS
Corporation. The author was the lead designer and engineer-of-record for this design.
The bridge is currently under construction with the first of the twin decks expected to be
completed in the spring of 2012. Figure 1-13 shows a computer image of the completed
bridge and Figure 1-14 shows construction progress as of September 2011.
Figure 1-13: Computer Image Of The Completed Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, New
Haven, Connecticut. (Image Courtesy URS Corporation)
14
Figure 1-14: Author At Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge On September 16, 2011, Showing
Construction Progress. (Photo By Author)
At least one additional extradosed prestressed bridge is planned in the United
States, the Stillwater Bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin over the scenic St Croix
River (also called the St Croix River Bridge) (Figure 1-15). This project has progressed
through the concept development phase and the preparation of the environmental
documentation, with a recommendation of the extradosed prestressed bridge type. The
project is awaiting funding and final environmental clearances and a construction date
has not been set.
15
Figure 1-15: Image Of Planned St Croix Extradosed Prestressed Bridge (Courtesy
Minnesota DOT)
The bridge development process in the United States can require a decade or more
from initial planning, through environmental clearance, design and construction. Many
of the projects being planned today are considering the extradosed bridge type, and it is
expected to see this bridge type to be proposed in the U.S. with increasing frequency.
1.7 Discussion
Extradosed bridges as a new bridge type are in their formative stage of
development. Although Japan is a leader in this technology, with at least 29 examples of
this bridge type constructed and representing over half of the extradosed bridges
16
constructed worldwide, their codes and design standards have not been made available to
a wider audience. Much of their detailed design information is only available in the
Japanese language. The extradosed bridges constructed in the remaining parts of the
world generally represent a single structure, or at most a few structures, and code
development or design guidelines have not developed to the point of providing guidance
to engineers for this new bridge type. In general these bridges are constructed to project-
specific design criteria that are agreed upon by the owner, designer and reviewing
agencies.
It should be noted that the author has a deep interest in this subject, and the
research and assessment of the material for this topic has spanned more than a decade.
This has included a study tour of extradosed prestressed bridges in Japan in 2001,
ongoing review of literature related to extradosed bridges, the authors personal
experience as lead designer and Engineer-of-Record (and development of project-specific
design criteria) for the first extradosed prestressed bridge in the United States, the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge during the period from 2002 through 2009, ongoing
correspondence with designers of other extradosed bridges worldwide, the authors
participation the Post Tensioning Institute’s committee on stay cables (in particular their
consideration of design considerations for extradosed prestressed bridges) and the authors
ongoing responsibility for design assistance during construction for the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge, with the first of the twin bridges scheduled for completion in mid-
2012. While this time frame may be unusual for a Ph.D. dissertation, it was necessary to
envelope the scope and breadth of this particular topic.
17
1.8 Objectives
The goal of this dissertation is to organize and expand the knowledge base for
extradosed prestressed bridges, taking advantage of the authors experience over the past
decade, and with the intention of fostering their future application. To that end, the
specific objectives of this dissertation are as follows:
Provide a summary of representative extradosed bridges worldwide, to provide a
cross section of examples of this bridge type and their range of applicability
bridge layouts and details.
Provide an assessment and recommendations on proportioning details for this
bridge type, based on the established practice representing the population of
existing constructed bridges worldwide.
Provide as assessment and specific recommendations for stay-cable design criteria
for extradosed bridges, which can be used to define the classification of
extradosed prestressed bridge behavior, and can be used as a model for design
criteria for the cables.
Apply the stay-cable design criteria and proportioning recommendations to a
prototype extradosed bridge design.
1.9 Organization Of The Dissertation
This dissertation is organized to follow the objectives of the study. This Chapter 1
provides an introduction and overview of extradosed bridges and defines the scope and
objectives of this dissertation. Chapters 2 through 5 focus on each of the objectives
above. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this
dissertation.
18
Chapter 2: Representative Extradosed Bridges
2.1. General
The introduction of a new bridge type (or even a new bridge technology) can be a
slow process. Bridges are typically funded by public money, and have public oversight
on the use of these funds. The owners of the bridge are typically a state department of
transportation, the federal government agency or a quasi-public tolling agency. These
groups are the stewards of this public money and have oversight responsibility and
ultimately must answer to the public on how the funds are spent. They are generally
careful to not recommend untested or untried ideas in their decision about selection of a
bridge type, because this can present an unnecessary risk. Typical questions asked about
a proposed “new” idea or bridge type include:
Where has this been successfully done before?
How many of these bridges have been built?
How many of these bridges have been built your location (country or state)?
Are there other bridge types that could be used here rather than this new type?
As presented in Chapter 1, the first Extradosed Prestressed Bridge was the Odawara
Port Bridge, in Japan, completed in 1994. In the decade that followed this opening, at
least 28 extradosed prestressed bridges were constructed in the world; however, all but 5
of these were constructed in Japan. Clearly, the world has been slow to embrace this new
19
bridge type. This is not viewed as a result of shortcomings on the bridge concept, but
rather, the slow and careful introduction process. Even today, nearly 20 years after the
first extradosed bridge was built, most countries have only one or a very few examples of
this bridge type. In addition to the general reluctance of owners to embrace a new bridge
type, other factors that tend to slow the introduction of these new ideas include:
Lack of codes and design guidelines
Lack of design examples
Lack of or limited information available on previously built bridges
Lack of understanding of the design and implementation of this new bridge type
The initial work in Japan which currently includes at least 29 completed
extradosed bridges clearly provides the best representative examples of this technology;
from the initial introduction of the extradosed bridges concept and the first few bridges,
to the refinements and improvements that have come from continued use of this bridge
type. This chapter is to provide a brief overview of some of the selected extradosed
bridge designs in Japan, to provide data for further consideration of proportioning
parameters and for the purpose of providing designers of future extradosed bridges the
ability to answer some of the questions posed by owners about this bridge type.
To this end, the author was a member of a delegation that traveled to Japan from
September 8-16, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing extradosed bridge technology in
Japan. This trip was funded by the Federal Highway Administration and the Connecticut
Department of Transportation. It was not the “typical” scanning tour; it was specific to
gathering information for implementation of the design of the first extradosed bridge in
20
the United States, The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New Haven Connecticut (see
Chapter 5 for details on this bridge). The delegation met with owners, designers and
builders of extradosed bridges. Field visits were made to six extradosed bridges that
included extradosed bridges under constructed and completed bridges. These bridges that
were visited are shown in Figure 2-1
Japan
Figure 2-1: Bridges Visited By Delegation (Image Courtest Of And Adapted From Joe
Chilstrom)
21
The opportunity to discuss these bridges with the designers, owners and builders
and to personally visit the bridges presented an opportunity to go beyond the information
provided in the literature about these bridges, and to gain a deeper and first-hand
understanding of the design of these bridges. The delegations findings were published in
a report titled: “Extradosed Bridge Technology in Japan and the New Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge” (Chilstrom, 2001). The information in this chapter draws from the
delegations report, published information on the bridges, unpublished information
provided by the owners, designers and builders during the tour, and personal experiences
of the author from the study tour.
2.2 Odawara Port Bridge (Also Called Odawara Blueway Bridge)
The Odawara Port Bridge (Figure 2-2) was the first extradosed bridge constructed
in in Japan and in the world. It is located the Kanagawa Prefecture in the coastal
Odawara City, southwest of Tokyo.
Figure 2-2: Odawara Port Bridge (Photo By Author)
22
The Odawara Port Bridge is a three-span continuous structure with two planes of
extradosed cables connecting the tower to the girder in a fan arrangement. The cables are
provided over only a portion of the spans, to assist the girder to carry the loads. The Main
span is 400 feet and the side spans are 236 and 243 feet. The towers rise 35 feet above
the deck.
This groundbreaking structure took the basic idea of an extradosed prestressed
bridge from Mathivat (Mathivat, 1998) and produced a practical, economical and
aesthetically pleasing design. In doing so the designers were faced with many
challenges. These included establishing basic structure proportions girder depths, girder
haunch details, tower heights and stiffness, numbers of cables and cable geometry,
statical arrangement of the structure, establishing stressing limits and performance
criteria for the stay cables, assuring wind and seismic performance of the structure,
assuring the vibrations of the cables are suppressed, and developing practical and
economical erection procedures. Being a new structure type, the designers had to solve
numerous unique technical problems challenges in order to execute this design, which
they solved through a combination of engineering analysis and physical testing.
In addition to being the first extrdosed prestressed bridge in the world, this
structure incorporated several innovative features. The stay cables used epoxy coated
strand as a corrosion protection layer for the stay cables, a first for cable supported
bridges in Japan. This was also the first application of a saddle arrangement for cable
supported bridges in Japan (Figure 2-3). The saddle provides a continuous curved cable
path over the tops of the towers, rather than providing the termination of each stay cable
with individual anchorages at the tower location. This allowed a less congested
23
reinforcing for the tower in the stay anchorage region,
which proved less costly. Furthermore, an innovative
double pipe arrangement was used for the cable saddle
that permits future replacement of the cables. The
successful completion of this structure with this new
technology paved a path for bridge construction in
Japan for the next several decades and has led to dozens Figure 2-3: Saddle
Arrangement At The Top Of
of extradosed prestressed bridges to be constructed in Tower (Photo By Author)
Japan.
242.7’ 400.0’ 242.7’
73’ 83.6 83.6 60.6 83.6 83.6 73’

’ ’ ’ ’ ’
7 at 12.3’
= 86.1’
Figure 2-4: Odawara Port Bridge Elevation View
The Odawara Port Bridge was constructed in balanced cantilever, similar to the
construction method commonly used for concrete box girder bridges. The girders are
cantilevered 84 feet out from the towers using conventional internal post-tensioning
tendons. At this distance the capacity of the cross section in negative moment over the
tower is maximized. At a distance from the tower of 84 feet to 170 feet, the external
cables are used to provide efficient post tensioning of the girder. These cables essentially
24
give an eccentricity to the post tensioning that
43.6’
is larger than the depth of the section, and
provide sufficient reserve capacity that the
7.2’
11.5’
girder can continue to be cantilevered to mid-
span, 200 feet from the tower. The cable at mid-span at tower
Figure 2-5: Typical Section

layout is shown in Figure 2-4. The cross
section is a two-cell concrete box girder section as shown in Figure 2-5. The typical
cantilever slab that is typically seen in concrete box girders cross sections is not provided
in the extradosed bridge cross section since the cables must be attached near the exterior
webs. Sufficient rigidity must be provided in the transverse section to transfer a portion
of the load from the center web to the outer webs, and on to the cables, in proportional to
the stiffness balance between the stays and the girder. The stay cables are anchored
inside the box girder, as shown in Figure 2-5.
The design of the stay cables were a key design consideration. The design of the
cables for cable-stayed bridges is governed by the Japanese Highway Bridge
Specifications and is based on a factor of safety of 2.5, resulting is a stay stress of 0.4 f’s.
Based on a detailed comparison of the fatigue demand for extradosed bridge cables
versus cable-stayed bridge cables, a reduced factor of safety of 1.67 was recommended
for the Odawara Port Bridge, resulting in a higher allowable stress in the cables of 0.6 f’s,
and more efficient use of the cable materials. The fatigue demand for the Odawara Port
Bridge was computed based on the code-recommended vehicles and stress cycles, and
was verified by site specific traffic data and projections to assure the 50 year design life
of the cables (Kasuga, 1994). This essentially places the design stress level for the cables
25
at the same level as conventional post tensioning. However, the corrosion protection of
the stay cables was recommended the same as would be provided for a cable-stayed
bridge.
The design of the cable saddles at the top of the towers presented a special design
challenge, both for the saddle itself and the load transfer to the surrounding concrete in
the tower. The saddle was assembled as a double-pipe structure to provide replacement
capability of the cables as required by the Japanese codes. It was necessary not to allow
the cables to slip through the saddles given the unbalanced loads on either side of the
tower. Since the replacement requirement precluded grouting the cables in the tower, the
solution adopted was to anchor the cables on the outside of the towers by bearing of the
saddle assembly on the tower face. The load transfer to the concrete was analyzed using
two-dimensional finite element analysis. The design required horizontal prestressing of
the tower concrete to control tensile stresses in the concrete. Considering the unique
design condition of the saddle, full scale physical testing of the saddle assembly was
conducted to verify the design (ref. JHPC(d))
The designers also focused considerable attention to the aesthetics of this bridge,
both in the overall proportioning of the structure and in the details (Oishi, 1996). They
were quite aware that being the first extradosed bridge, this structure would set the stage
for judging the structural form possibilities with this structure type.
A extradosed bridge is at its roots a girder bridge, albeit, one that is assisted by
cables. Fortunately this allows the designer to provide a relatively slender girder, as
compared to what would be required for a traditional bridge. This allows a certain
elegance in the design. The designers were careful to provide a clean and simple form
26
for the girders and the towers. They studied numerous options, and selected a
trapezoidal-shaped variable-depth girder with an integral connection at the towers (i.e.,
no bearings). This provided a visually integrated appearance of the tower and the girder.
A number of tower forms were studied, some including struts between the tower legs
above deck. The selected shape is a simple tapered octagonal shape that is tightly
integrated with the girder. The result is a very direct expression of this structural form
(Figure 2-6).
Figure 2-6: The Essence Of The Extradosed Bridge Concept Is Expressed In Its
Structural Form - A Girder Bridge With External Prestressing (Photo By Author)
The detailing of the structure was an important part of the visual development of
the structure. There are numerous examples of the attention to details that are not
necessarily seen at first impression, but without them the structure would lose its
elegance.
27
For example, the cable vibration dampers that were developed for this structure
consists of high damping rubber disks that are placed radially around the cable at the
lower anchorage an attached so as to deform in shear as the cable attempts to vibrate.
These new dampers were tested to prove their effectiveness as part of this project
(Kasuga, 1995). This damper arrangement allowed the dampers to be concealed within
the external pipe surrounding the stay cable, and avoided the external “shock-absorber”
type anchors used on so many cable stayed bridges. Those anchors are effective, but
detract from the visual appearance of the structure.
Figure 2-7: Color Grading Of The Stay Cable Sheathing (Photo By Author)
Another example is the detailing of the stay cable sheath. The outer sheath is a
fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) sheath that was color impregnated. The color was graded
from blue at the top of the tower to near white at the bottom, blending with the sky
(Figure 2-7). Also, an open steel railing was adopted in order to provide both driver
safety and the visual slenderness of the bridge. Ordinary light poles would be taller than
the towers and would visually conflict with the lines of the cables. To avoid this conflict,
28
longitudinal line lighting was incorporated into the railing at a 6.5 foot height. A dark
blue color was chosen for the painted railing (Figure 2-7).
The Odawara Port Bridge, as the first example of an extradosed bridge in Japan
(and the world) set important precedents for the design and proportioning of the new
structure type. Its success is a testament to the care and attention to detailing of its
designers and constructors. The success of this project led to continued application of the
extradosed bridge type in Japan, as well as other parts of the world.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of project data for the Odawara Port Bridge.
Information sources for Table 2-1:

Chilstrom, 2001
Ikeda, 2000
Japan Highway Public Corporation (undated)
Kasuga, 1994
Kasuga, 1995
Kasuga, 2006
Ogawa 1998 (a)
Ogawa 1998 (b)
Oishi, 1996
Yoshiaki, 1993
Notes for Table 2-1:

1. $18 million construction contract excluding foundations and including 0.9 miles
of approaches. 1991 dollars.
2. Total prestress weight divided by deck plan area
3. Girder equivalent thickness = Girder concrete volume divided by deck area
29
Table 2-1 Project Data For Odawara Port Bridge
Bridge Name Odawara Port Bridge

Location Kanagawa Prefecture in coastal Odawara City,
southwest of Tokyo.
Owner Japan Highway Public Corporation
Designer (Basic) Japan Bridge and Structure Institute, Inc.
Designer (Detailed) Joint Venture of Sumitomo Construction Company
General Details
and Kajima Corp.

Builder Joint Venture of Sumitomo Construction Company
and Kajima Corp.
Year Completed 1994
Number of Spans 3
Span Layout 236 ft. - 400 ft. - 243 ft
Contract Value (Note 1) $18 million
Construction Schedule 35 months (Dec. 1991 – Oct. 1994)
Number of planes of stay-cables 2
Alignment Tapered on east backspan from 42.6 ft. to 72 ft.
Tower Height 35.1 ft.
Tower
Span/Tower Height Ratio 12:1

Stay attachment detail at tower Continuous cable with saddle (replaceable)
Tower/Girder connection Integral
Number of box girder cells 2
Girder Width 42’-8”
Girder Details
Girder Depth at Tower 11.48 ft.

Girder Depth at Mid-span 7.22 ft.
Girder span/depth ratio at tower 34.8:1
Girder span/depth ratio at mid-span 55.6:1
Deck Construction Cast-in-place using form traveler
Erection Method Balanced cantilever
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) 19- 7-wire 0.6” strand
Stay Arrangement Fan
Stay Spacing 12.3 feet
Stay Cables
Stay Supplier Dwyidag

Stay Corrosion Protection Flo-bond epoxy coated strand in polymer-cement
grouted fiber reinforced plastic sheath
Stay maximum allowable stress 0.6 f’s
Stay Damping High-damping rubber dampers (3-5% logarithmic
damping)
Total Longitudinal prestress (stay + 11.1 psf
Quantities
longitudinal PT) (note 2)

Stay Quantity (note 2) 3.2 psf
Longitudinal prestress quantity (note 2) 7.9 psf
Girder equivalent thickness (note 3) 3.33 ft.
Testing Performed Fatigue testing of stay cables
Fatigue testing of dampers
Other
Aesthetic Details Aesthetic lighting

Color transitioned stay cables
30
2.3 Shinkawa River Bridge
The Shinkawa River Bridge was under construction in September 2001 at the time
of the field visit, and was completed in 2002. Figure 2-8 shows the bridge under
construction and Figure 2-9 shows an image of the completed bridge. The bridge is
located between Odawara City and Nagoya and carries a new ring-road connecting
Hamamatsu-Nishi I.C. (The Tomei Freeway) with National Road Route No. 1.
Figure 2-8: Shinkawa River Bridge Under Construction (Photo By Author)
Figure 2-9: Image Of Completed Shinkawa River Bridge (Image Provided by Joe
Chilstrom, Courtesy Of Japan Public Highway Corporation)
31
126’ 148’ 295’ 426’ 264’
7 at 11.5’ = 80’
126’ 89 89 89 126’
89 89
’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Figure 2-10: Shinkawa River Bridge Elevation View
The Shinkawa River Bridge is a five-span continuous girder bridge with span
lengths of 126’ / 148’ / 295’ / 426’ / 264’. The first two spans are conventional box
girders and the last three spans are extradosed prestressed girders (Figure 2-10). The first
two spans and a portion of span 3 are on a horizontal curve with a 4,100 foot radius. The
towers are single pylons in the middle of the cross-section,extending 42.6 feet above deck
level, and the bridge is supported by two closely-spaced parallel planes of stay cables at
the centerline of the girder (in the roadway median). The bridge is constructed in
balanced cantilever, cast-in-place concrete using a traveling form system. The traveling
form and scaffolding supporting the stay cable erection is shown in Figure 2-11. The
traveling form is supported off the end of the cantilever, and is self-launching.
The girder is a three-cell box girder section that supports four lanes of traffic, two
in each direction, and a 10 foot wide sidewalk on each side. The girder has a parabolic
haunch in the extradosed spans, the girder depth at the towers is 13.1 feet and 7.87 feet
deep at mid-span. Since the section is supported by a single plane of stays in the median,
the girder cross can have typical cantilever slab extensions as shown in Figure 2-12.
32
Figure 2-11: Form Traveler For Girder Casting (Photo By Author)
Figure 2-12: Girder Cross-Section (Photo By Author)
33
The stay cables are each comprised of 37- 0.6” dia. Grade 270 seven-wire epoxy
coated strand. The cable system was provided by the company Dywidag. A saddle is
used at the top of tower with each continuous stay cable continuing over the tower. The
saddle detail is a double-pipe arrangement similar to that described for the Odawara Port
Bridge. A mock-up of the saddle assembly was on-site and is shown in Figure 2-13.
These saddle systems are prefabricated and placed as a unit in the tower. This procedure
provides good accuracy on setting of the cables, avoids field issues and is faster to
construct than individual saddle installations.
The girder rests on high-damping rubber bearings (rubber bearing with an internal
lead plug) at the piers and towers. The towers are integral with the girder, but “pinned”
with respect to the lower portion of the tower. This is in part due to the stiff lower tower
and foundation that prohibits a rigid frame arrangement. The bearings also provide a level
of base-isolation for seismic loading.
This project provided a good opportunity for the study delegation to observe the
construction techniques and workmanship of extradosed bridges built in Japan. The
general workmanship, inspection procedures, quality control and attention to worker
safety were excellent. Substantial efforts were expended to providing good access to the
construction site. This included construction of a temporary work bridge over the water,
parallel to the bridge for foundation access and material supply, construction of full
scaffolding to support the stay cable erection and good access to the work-front at the
traveler, around the end of the superstructure cantilever. The project was supported by an
on-site conference center that included field personnel offices and mock-ups of key
34
bridge features, such as the saddles and anchorages (Figure 2-13 and 2-14). Table 2-2
provides a summary of project data for the Shinkawa Bridge.
Figure 2-13: Saddle Mock-Up (Photo By Author)
Figure 2-14: Mock-Up Of Stay Cable Anchorage (Photo By Author)
35
Table 2-2: Project Data for Shinkawa River Bridge
Bridge Name Shinkawa River Bridge

Location Between Odawara City and Nagoya
Owner Japan Public Highway Corporation
Designer (Basic) PS Corporation and CTI Engineering
General Details
Designer (Detailed) Sumitomo Construction Company, Ltd.

Builder Sumitomo Construction Company, Ltd.
Year Completed 2002
Number of Spans 5-span continuous (3-spans extradosed)
Span Layout 126’ / 148’ / 295’ / 426’ / 264’
Construction Schedule 33 months
Number of planes of stay-cables One central plane
Alignment Straight, constant width.
Tower Height 42.64 feet
Tower
Span/Tower Height Ratio 10:1

Stay attachment detail at tower saddle
Tower/Girder connection High-load rubber bearings
Girder Width 82 feet
Girder Details
Girder Depth at Tower 13.12 feet

Girder Depth at Mid-span 7.87 feet
Girder span/depth ratio at tower 54:1
Erection Method Balanced Cantilever
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) 37-0.6” Seven Wire Grade 270 Strands
Stay Arrangement Semi-fan
Stay Cables

Stay Supplier Dywidag
Stay Corrosion Protection Epoxy Coated Strand
Stay Damping High-damping rubber dampers
Total Longitudinal prestress (stay + N/A
Quantities
longitudinal PT)
Stay Quantity N/A
Longitudinal prestress quantity N/A
Girder equivalent thickness N/A

Chilstrom, 2001
Japan Public Highway Corporation, undated
Kasuga, 2006
Sumitomo, 1998
Sumitomo, 2001

1. 1999 dollars.
36
2.4 Miyakodagawa Bridge
The Miyakodagawa bridge is part of the second Tomei Expressway near
Hamamatsu city in the Shizuoke prefecture crossing the Miyakodagawa River. The
bridge is a two-span continuous concrete bridge with three tower pylons supporting two
parallel decks with four planes of stay cables. The spans lengths are each 436 feet (Figure
2-15 and 2-16). Design began in 1996, and the extradosed portion of the bridge was
completed in 2001 (just before arrival of the study delegation). The free cantilever length
of 317 feet represents the largest all-concrete extradosed bridge in Japan at the time of its
construction.
Figure 2-15: Miyakodagawa Bridge (Photo By Author)
37
.
436’ 436’
Figure 2-16: Miyakodagawa Bridge Elevation View
The girder is comprised of twin two-cell concrete box girder sections, each 65.3
feet wide, carrying three lanes of traffic in each direction (Figure 2-17). The girder
segments were cast in typical 10 foot long sections in balanced cantilever, using a
traveling form system. A few segments near the towers were 8.2 foot long, to reduce
weight. The girder is 21 feet deep at the tower and 13 feet deep at the end piers, with a
linear haunch over 10 segments out from the tower.
An unusual design condition was that a no-collapse condition for the girder was
required under an extreme event case of loss of all cables. This was investigated at
ultimate strength using a non-linear fiber model analysis. With the cables all severed, the
superstructure displaced 24 inches, but without collapse. This is an extreme design
condition that is not normally imposed on other extradosed bridges in Japan (Tsuchida,
2001).
38
54’ 54’
21’
13’
Half-Section at Tower Half-Section at mid -span
Figure 2-17: Typical Section
The cables are 27 – 0.6” diameter seven-wire grade 270 strands with a maximum
stress of 0.6 f’s. The strands are individually encased in a high density polyethylene
(HDPE) sheath, and then bundled together into a separate outer HDPE sheath. The
annulus between the cables and the sheath is filled with cement grout. High density
rubber dampers similar to the Odawara Port Bridge are used. At the towers prefabricated
saddles are used.
The spatial arrangement of the cables was studied in detail, including variations
on the distance from the tower to the first cable and the number and spacing of cables. It
was concluded that the system was not too sensitive to these values, and within a
reasonable range the spatial arrangement could be selected based on appearance without
affecting the economy of the system. An arrangement with the first cable 98 feet from
the tower and with 11 cables at 20 foot spacing was selected based on appearance.
39
Figure 2-18: Completed Towers (Photo By Author)
40
An unusual feature of this bridge is the tower detailing (Figure 2-18). The bridge
deck is 297 feet above the Miyakodagawa River, resulting in very tall tower legs. The
seismic criteria in Japan was modified after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Kobe
on January 17 1995, to a two-level seismic performance criteria. The two performance
levels required:
No damage for low intensity earthquake
Minor damage for high intensity earthquake, but no collapse
After extensive dynamic analysis, a unique design with the vertical tower legs of a
composite design, consisting of multiple 5 foot diameter steel pipes encased in concrete
with post-tensioning hoop tendons for confinement and vertical mild steel reinforcing for
crack-control. During construction the steel pipe core supports the concrete formworks
and scaffolding. The design provided superior seismic performance while minimizing
cost and improving constructability. This was considered a new construction method for
Japan. Figure 2-18 shows the completed towers. The foundations are a spread footings.
The aesthetic goal for this project was to provide a moderately symbolic main
tower. The success of this goal is evidenced by the award of the 2001 “Tanaka Prize” for
the Miyakodagawa Bridge. The Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) established the
Tanaka Prize in honor of the late late Dr.Yutaka Tanaka, the first head of the Bridge
Division of The Board of Capital Reconstruction / The Bureau of Reconstruction during
reconstruction of the capital following the Great Kanto Earthquake. He is widely known
41
as the man responsible for the construction of many famous bridges familiar to the
general public that have become symbols of Tokyo.
This prize is awarded annually and is considered one of the highest honors for
bridges in Japan. Projects receiving the prize must demonstrate as having also contributed
greatly to the dissemination of bridge engineering technology. The Miyakodagawa
Bridge was cited for being the first extradosed bridge combined with tall steel
pipe/concrete composite towers and for contributing to the advance of technology for
design and construction of bridges with long spans and high elevated bridge piers in the
mountains.
Table 2-3 provides a summary of project data for the Miyakodagawa Bridge.

Chilstrom, 2001
Kasuga, 2006
Tsuchida, 2001
1. $55 million ($17 million superstructure and $38 million substructure)

2. Span x 1.8 is used for calculation of ratios. (for 1.8 factor see discussion in
Section 3.3)
3. HDPE = high density polyethylene
4. Total prestress weight divided by deck area
5. Girder equivalent thickness = Girder concrete volume divided by Deck area
42
Table 2-3: Project Data For Miyakodagawa Bridge
Bridge Name Miyakodagawa Bridge

Location Near Hamamatsu City in Shizuoka Prefecture
Owner Japan Public Highway Corporation
Designer (Basic) CTI Consultants
General Details
Designer (Detailed) CTI Consultants

Co-Builders Sumitomo/Mitsui Construction Company, Ltd.
Year Completed 2001
Number of Spans 2
Span Layout 436’ / 436’
Contract Value (Note 1) 55 million
Construction Schedule NA
Number of planes of stay-cables 4 planes supported by 3 tower legs
Alignment Straight, constant width
Tower
Span/Tower Height Ratio (note 2) 12:1

Stay attachment detail at tower Continuous cable with saddle (replaceable)
Number of box girder cells Twin girders, two-cells each
Girder Width 65.30 ft. each deck
Girder Details
Girder Depth at Tower 21.3ft.

Girder span/depth ratio at tower (note 2) 36.8:1
Girder span/depth ratio at mid-span (note 2) 59.9:1
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) 27 – 0.6” dia. seven-wire grade 270 strand
Stay Spacing 10 feet
Stay Cables
Stay Supplier NA
Stay Corrosion Protection (note 3) Strands in individual HDPE sheaths, encased in
an overall HDPE sheath and with annulus
grouted
Stay Damping High-damping rubber dampers
Quantities

Girder equivalent thickness (note 4) NA
Testing Performed Wind Tunnel Testing
Stay Cable Fatigue Testing
Other
Aesthetic Details 2001Tanaka Prize award
43
2.5 Kiso And Ibi River Bridges
Also known as the Kisogawa and Ibigawa bridges, these two sister bridges are
multi-span extradosed bridge that push the limit of span length for extradosed bridges,
with a 902 ft. maximum main span length (Figure 2-19). This feat is accomplished with a
state-of-the-art hybrid design – the first hybrid extradosed bridges in the world. The
portion of the girder extending from the tower out to the last cable (called the forestay
cable) is a concrete box girder section similar to previously discussed extradosed bridges,
But the girder section between the forestay cables is a orthotropic steel section (Figure 2-
20). This was done to save weight, and allow the long spans needed at this site.
Figure 2-19: Ibi River Bridge (Kiso Bridge Similar) (Photo By Author)
The Ibi River Bridge is a six-span structure with span lengths of 505’ / 891’ / 891’
/ 891’ / 891’ / 515’. The Kiso River Bridge is a five-span structure with spans of 525’ /
902’ / 902’ / 902’ / 525’. In both bridges the steel box sections are 328 feet long.
44
Concrete Steel Concrete
Figure 2-20: Hybrid Span Layout (Photo By Author)
108.2
’
12.88
22.72
’
Half-section end of concrete section Half-section at tower ’
Figure 2-21: Concrete Girder Typical Section
45
The concrete box sections that cantilever out from the towers are a precast
concrete box girder segments. These are three-cell box girders, and were cast at a 20 acre
casting yard about 6 miles from the site. Four casting cells were set up to cast the 375
segments using the short-line casting method. The segments are 108 feet wide 16.4 feet
long and vary in depth from 13 to 23 feet. The segment weight varys from 300 to 400
tons. Transportation of these heavy segments to the site was by barge. Typical concrete
segment cross section is shown in Figure 2-21.
The concrete used in the segments was 8700 psi compressive strength, which was
the first time such a high strength concrete ws used in Japan. Thes project included
material testing of the concrete to confirm its properties, and fabrication of two full sized
segments as a test to assure the practicality of the proposed segment fabrication. These
tests confirmed:
Concrete workability
Measurement of the bowing effect for wide segments
Measurement of concrete curing temperatures
Measurements of stress during lifting and storage
Measurement of slab deflection during transverse prestressing
The superstrure is integral with the above-deck portion of the tower and sits on
rubber bearings atop the lower tower legs. The erection procedure is to place the first
segments atop the tower lower legs using a floating crane. Segments are the transported
by floating barge and then lifted by an erection/jacking frame that is isntalled on the
leading edge of each cantilever. Once the last cable is installed, the 328 foot long 2000
46
ton orthotropic girder section are lifted from the leading edge of the concrete sections.
The final riding surface is 3-inch asphalt overlay with a waterproof membrane. The
typical steel cross section is shown in Figure 2-22.
108.2’
12.88’
Figure 2-22: Steel Orthotropic Girder Typical Section
The stay cables are located in the median of the roadway and are comprised of
two closely-spaced parallel cables at each location. The distance between the cables is
20-inches at the top and 40 inches at the bottom. The closely-spaced cables were wind
tunnel tested to investigate several potential aerodynamic instability phenomena,
including:
Galloping (individual cable)
Wake galloping (pairs of cables)
Wake induced flutter
Vortex-induced motions
Wind-rain induced motions
Inclined cable vibration
47
It was discovered that for a transverse spacing ratio W/D of 4.3 the most
significant vibrations occurred (W is spacing on centers of the cables and D is diameter
of cable). For W/D ratios of 6.5 and 8.7, no significant vibrations occurred. A log-
decrement damping of 3% was sufficient to suppress all vibrations.
The W/D ratio for the Kiso and Ibi bridges varies from 4.3 to 8.7. Therefore, high
damping rubber dampers with a 3% log-decrement damping were provided for all cables
(Tokoro, 1999). These dampers are placed in a ring around the lower portion of the cable
(at deck level) then covered with a reinforced plastic cover (Figure 2-23).
Figure 2-23: Stay Details At Deck Level Showing Cover For Rubber Dampers (Photos By
Author)
The longitudinal spacing of the stays is 16.5 feet. The stay cables are galvanized
seven-wire 0.6-inch strands that have individual HDPE sheaths filled with wax. The
strand groups are bundled inside an outer HDPE sheath and the annulus filled with HDPE
beads. Hi-AM anchorages were prefabricated onto the cables. The cables were designed
48
to a maximum stress of 0.6 f’s. In discussions with the bridge designer, the cable stress
change due to live load fatigue was the most important element of the cable design.
No helical bead was provided around the stay sheath. Cable vibration, including
wind-rain and galloping of the closely places cable pairs, was investigated in the wind
tunnel, and high-damping rubber dampers were provided to control vibration effects.
The towers above roadway were shaped to visually suggest a sail looking from
the river (Figure 2-24). They are 5’-9” wide and 33 feet long at the base and 98 feet tall.
Individual stay anchorages were used at the top of the tower. Saddles were not used for
this bridge.
Tables 2-4 and 2-5 provide a summary of project data for the Kiso and Ibi
Bridges, respectively.
49
Figure 2-24: Tower Suggesting A "Sail-Shape" (Photo By Author)
50
Table 2-4: Project Data For Kiso River Bridge
Bridge Name Kiso River Bridge

Location New Meishin Expressway over Kiso River, Mie
Prefecture
Designer Sumitomo Construction Company
General Details
Builder Joint venture of: Sumitomo Construction

Company, Ltd., D.P.S. Bridge Works Company
and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Year Completed 2001
Number of Spans 5
Span Layout 525’ / 902’ / 902’ / 902’ / 525’
Contract Value (Note 1) $37.5 million
Number of planes of stay-cables Two closely spaced cables in median
Span/Tower Height Ratio 9.3:1
Tower
Stay attachment detail at tower Individually anchored cables

Tower/Girder connection Integral with upper tower. Rubber bearing with
lower tower.
Girder Width 108.2
Girder Details

Deck Construction Hybrid girder, with precast segmental concrete box
girder sections near towers and steel orthotropic
box girder for drop-in section at middle of main
spans.
Erection Method Balanced cantilever with drop-in steel section.
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) Galvanized seven-wire Grade 270 strand
Stay Arrangement Modified fan
Stay Cables
Stay Supplier Skinko/BBR

Stay Corrosion Protection Individually HDPE sheathed galvanized strand
with wax filler. Strands grouped in HDPE outer
sheath, filled with polyethylene beads.
Stay Damping High-damping rubber with logarithmic damping
decrement of 3%
Total Long. prestress (stay + long. PT) N/A
Quantities
Stay Quantity (note 2) N/A

Concrete Gdr equivalent thickness (note 3) 3.20 ft.
Steel Girder 124 psf
Testing Performed Full-size segment casting test
Fatigue test for steel-concrete girder connection
Other
Fatigue test for slab stringer

Fatigue test for steel slab
Full-scale wind tunnel testing for stay cable
Aesthetic Details Tanaka Prize, 2002
51
BD&E, 1999
Chilstrom, 2001
Hirano, 1999
Ikeda, 2000
JHPC(a), undated
JHPC(b), undated
JHPC(c), undated
JSCE, 2000
Kasuga, 2006

1. $37.5 million construction contract includes superstructure and substructure. 1998
dollars.
52
Table 2-5: Project Data For Ibi River Bridge
Bridge Name Ibi River Bridge

Location New Meishin Expressway over Kiso River, Mie
Prefecture
Designer Sumitomo Construction Company
General Details
Builder Joint venture of: Sumitomo Construction

Company, Ltd., D.P.S. Bridge Works Company
and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Year Completed 2001
Number of Spans 5
Span Layout 505’ / 891’ / 891’ / 891’ / 891’ / 515’
Contract Value N/A
Number of planes of stay-cables Two closely spaced cables in median
Tower
Stay attachment detail at tower Individually anchored cables

Integral with upper tower.
Tower/Girder connection Rubber bearing with lower tower.
Girder Width 108.2 feet
Girder Details

Deck Construction Hybrid girder, with precast segmental concrete box
girder sections near towers and steel orthotropic
box girder for drop-in section at middle of main
spans.
Erection Method Balanced cantilever with drop-in steel section.
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) Galvanized seven-wire Grade 270 strand
Stay Arrangement Modified fan
Stay Cables
Stay Supplier Skinko/BBR

Stay Corrosion Protection Individually HDPE sheathed galvanized strand
with a wax filler. Strands grouped in HDPE outer
sheath, filled with polyethylene beads.
Stay Damping High-damping rubber with logarithmic damping
decrement of 3%
Total Long. prestress (stay + long. PT) N/A
Quantities
Stay Quantity N/A

Concrete Gdr equivalent thickness (note 2) 3.52 ft.
Steel Girder 111.7 psf
Testing Performed Full-size segment casting test
Fatigue test for steel-concrete girder connection
Other
Fatigue test for slab stringer

Fatigue test for steel slab
Full-scale wind tunnel testing for stay cable
Aesthetic Details Tanaka Prize, 2002
53
BD&E, 1999
Chilstrom, 2001
Hirano, 1999
Ikeda, 2000
JHPC(a), undated
JHPC(b), undated
JHPC(c), undated
JSCE, 2000
Kasuga, 2006

54
2.6 Okuyama Bridge (Also Known As Shin-Karato Bridge)
The Hanshin Expressway Kita-Kobe Route links Dai-ni Shinmei and Chugoku
Expressways. The Okuyama Bridge is part of this route, located in the Karato area
adjacent to Mount Rokko, Kobe. The Okuyama Bridge is actually twin bridges with
adjacent alignments, carrying the eastbound and westbound traffic (Figure 2-25). This
was the only extradosed bridge visited on the study tour that was not a waterway
crossing.
Figure 2-25: Author At Okuyama Bridge, Kobe (Photo By Author)
Both bridges are on a curved alignment with a 1,312 foot radius. The span
lengths for the eastbound bridge are 217’ / 394’ / 236’ and the span lengths for the
westbound bridge are 243’ / 459’ / 227’.
55
The typical girder cross-section is a two cell concrete box girder. The eastbound
structure is constant width of 37.3 feet. The westbound structure is typical width of 47.0
feet wide. The westbound structure widens in the western side span and a portion of the
main span to accommodate an exit ramp. In the widened area a three-cell box is used
with closely spaced center webs (Figure 2-26). The stay cables anchored at the girder on
the exterior face of the outer web at a 13.1 foot spacing (Figure 2-27). The say cables are
uncoated seven-wire grade 270 strand encased in a high density polyethylene (HDPE)
sheath with the annulus between the sheath and the strands filled with cement grout. The
stays were stressed to a maximum working stress of 0.6 f’s and fatigue assessments were
made to confirm this design condition.
37.3’ Eastbound Varies – Westbound tapered

Varies 8.2’ to 11.5’
Varies 8.2’ to 11.5’
47.0’ Westbound
Figure 2-26: Okuyama Bridge Typical Sections
56
Figure 2-27: Stay Anchorage Detail (Photo By Author)
The bridges are located at a site with difficult foundation conditions that include
construction on on an unstable mountain slope and potential landslide area. The
Okuyama Bridges were designed immediately following the Kobe earthquake (January
17, 1995 Magnitude 6.8), and the design was strongly influenced by seismic design
considerations and the difficult site conditions. The extradosed bridge provides a lower
mass structure than a conventional girder bridge which was important for seismic design.
In order to further reduce seismic demand, the lower tower legs were de-coupled from the
superstructure by seismic isolation bearing (rubber bearing with a lead core) between the
superstrucure and the lower tower legs. This arrangement provided design control of the
seismic forces transferred from the superstructure to the lower tower legs under seismic
loading (Figure 2-28).
57
The towers are 39.4 feet tall above deck level, resulting in span/tower ratios of
10:1 for the eastbound bridge and 11.7:1 for the westbound bridge. The towers are
integral with the superstrucre and include a stiff cross-strut above deck level. This
arrangement provides a very stiff tower that assists in resisting the torsional forces from
the bridges curvature and the lateral seismic demands.
A double-pipe prefabricated saddle was used at the top of towers for the stay
cables (Sumitomo, 1998). This detail allowed future replacement of the stays, while
providing the necessary resistance against slippage and necessary corrosion protection.
Because of scheduling of the overall Hanshin Expressway construction, it was
desirable to minimize the construction period for this bridge. Access on the steep
mountain site prohibited the use of heavy presast superstructure elements, so a cast-in-
place erection method was used for the girder, using a traveling form system and
balanced cantilever construction. However, to accelerate construction, reinforcing cages
were pre-assembled in a nearby casting yard and delivered by truck to site and inserted
into the formwork. This allowed construction time to be shortened and provided
improved quality since the reinforcing cages were assembled in a controlled environment.
A novel feature used for this project was pre-grouted transverse prestressing of
the slab to reduce site labor and accelerate construcion. The tendons were installed with
an epoxy resin pre-injected into the tendon ducts. A slow-cure epoxy was used with a
cure time of three to six months, which coincided with the required construction lag time.
58
This project achieved a remarkably short construction time of 23 months; 8
months for the substructre and 15 months for the superstructure. Tables 2-6 provides a
summary of project data for the Okkuyama Bridge.
Figure 2-28: Typical Tower Layout (Photo By Author)
59
Table 2-6: Project Data For Okuyama Bridge
Bridge Name Okuyama Bridge

Location Near town of Shin-Karato, Kobe
Owner Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation
Designer Joint Venture of PS, Oriental, and Nippon Koatsu
General Details
Builder Joint Venture of PS, Oriental, and Nippon Koatsu

Year Completed 1998
Number of Spans 3
Span Layout (Eastbound) 217’ / 394’ / 236’
Span Layout (Westbound) 243’ / 459’ / 227’
Construction Schedule (Note 2) 23 months
Number of planes of stay-cables 2
Alignment Curved, 1,312 foot radius; and tapered
Tower Height 39.4 feet (both bridges)
Span/Tower Height Ratio 10:1 Eastbound; 11.7:1 Westbound
Tower
Stay attachment detail at tower Saddle

Tower/Girder connection Integral, with rubber bearings between girder and
lower tower.
Number of box girder cells 2 typical. 3 in tapered region of Westbound Bridge
Girder Width (Eastbound) 31.8 feet
Girder Details
Girder Depth (Westbound) Varies (41.5 feet minimum)

Girder span/depth ratio at tower 34:1 (Eastbound); 40:1 (Westbound)
Girder span/depth ratio at mid-span 48:1 (Eastbound); 56:1 (Westbound)
Deck Construction Cast-in-place using form travelers
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) Uncoated seven-wire grade 270 strand
Stay Arrangement Fan
Stay Cables

Stay Supplier Dwyidag
Stay Corrosion Protection Grouted inside a HDPE sheath
Stay Damping N/A
Total Longitudinal prestress (stay + N/A
Quantities

Stay Quantity (note 2) N/A
Longitudinal prestress quantity (note 2) N/A
Girder equivalent thickness (note 3) N/A
Novel Features Pre-grouted transverse deck slab tendons
Construction Stage Monitoring Tensile forces in stay cables
Stresses in girders
Other
Inclination of the piers

Temperature of the stay cables and the girders
60
Chilstrom, 2001
Hanshin, 2001
Sumitomo, 1998
Tomita, 1999
1. $34 million includes both bridges. 1995 dollars.

2. Foundations = 8 months; Superstructure = 15 months
61
2.7 Tsukuhara Bridge
The Tsukuhara Bridge (Figure 2-29) was originally planned as an arch bridge, but
the design was changed to an extradosed prestressed bridge following the success of the
Odawara Port Bridge. The re-design as an extradosed bridge closely followed the design
concept and the technology of the Odawara Port Bridge. (Honma, 2001). The design
change was made to save costs, because it provided better seismic performance that the
previously designed arch bridge and because the extradosed design was felt to fit better
visually with a nearby cable-stayed pedestrian bridge. This was the second extradosed
prestressed bridge by this owner, the Japan Highway Public Corporation.
Figure 2-29: Tsukhuara Bridge (Photo By Author)
The Tsukuhara Bridge is on the Sayno Expressway in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture.
The 590 foot main span was necessary to span Lake Tsukuhara, which provides drinking
water. Because of the local topography, the side spans were shorter than desirable to
avoid uplift conditions at the ends of the side spans. Because of the relatively short side
62
spans, counterweights were placed inside the box girders of each side span to avoid uplift
conditions and to reduce the overturning moment at the towers. The bridge is twin
parallel three-span continuous rigid frame extradosed bridges (Figure 2-30).
This bridge was designed soon after the 1995 Kobe earthquake (Magnitude 6.8).
Following this event, new provisional seismic design provisions were drawn up in Japan.
The Ksukuhara Bridge was designed to these new provisions. This required non-linear
seismic response analysis that modeled cracking of the concrete and yielding of
reinforcing, in transverse and longitudinal directions.
215’ 590’ 251’
11’ 7@16. 89’ 90’ 7@23. 90’ 7@23. 90’ 89’ 7@19. 24’
4’ 0’=160’ 0’
=160’ 7’=138’
=115’
Figure 2-30: Tsukuhara Bridge Elevation View
The superstructure of the Tsukuhara Bridge is comprised of twin parallel girders
that are each 42 feet wide, accommodating two lanes of traffic in each direction. This is
about the same width as the Odawara Port Bridge width; however the Tsukuhara Bridge
uses a single cell box girder instead of the two cell box girder used for the Odawara Port
Bridge. This change was an outcome of lessons learned on the Odawara Port Bridge, and
was to enhance the efficiency of the form travelers used for casting the girder.
63
The elimination of the third web also reduced the dead-weight of the girder.
However it resulted in a 30 foot top slab span. A finite element analysis was used in the
analysis and design of box girder cross section to ensure durability with this long slab
span. The girder has a parabolic haunch, with a depth at the towers of 18 feet and a depth
at mid-span of 9.8 feet (Figure 2-31).
42.0’
9.8
18.0’
’
Half-Section at Tower Half-Section at Mid-Span
Figure 2-31: Girder Typical Section
For the Odawara Port Bridge the anchorages were inside the box girder. For the
Tshkuhara Bridge the stay anchorages at the girder were revised to be placed outside the
box girder. This allowed tensioning the cables before moving the form traveler and
shortened the construction time since the stay cables can be installed while curing the
concrete.
The transverse prestressing used the “after bond” pre-grouted tendons, similar to
the Okuyama Bridge. This system is comprised of a single 1.1-inch diameter strand that
has a slow curing epoxy injected in the tendon sheath prior to placement of the strand.
64
This epoxy cures over a period of 3 to 6 months. This system avoids cement grouting of
these tendons, and saves both time and cost.
The towers are “V-Shaped” and provide a direct load path from the stay force
introduction at the top to the foundation (Figure 2-31). Cross beams were not necessary
due to the stiffness provided of the free-standing legs. Saddles are used at the tower top
to avoid congestion and simplify the reinforcing.
The Tsukuhara Bridge was erected in balanced cantilever. The girder was cast-in-
place using a form traveler. The traveler was about twice the size of a typical traveler
and allowed a large 23 foot segment length. This was to shorten the construction time.
An advantage of the extradosed bridge system is that the stay cables could be installed to
their final force with no adjustment of the cables needed during construction. This means
that special devices for holding the jacks were not needed and the jacks could be housed
in the form traveler.
The stay cables are 27 – seven wire Grade 270 strands. Corrosion protection is
provided by encasing the individual strands in a layer of polyethylene, then encasing the
strand bundle in an un-grouted outer polyethylene sheath. Polyethylene filler in used in
the annular space between the outer sheath and the cables. The maximum stress in the
cable was set at 0.6 f’s and the maximum fatigue stress was confirmed with this
maximum working stress in the cables. The designers of this bridge did not use stay
anchorages that have high fatigue strength, such as used for cable-stayed bridges, because
of the low fatigue demand. Damping of the stays was provided by high damping
capacity rubber dampers placed at the lower end of the cables. The damping provided is
65
a log decrement of 3%. Table 2-7 provides a summary of project data for the Tsukuhara
Bridge.
Figure 2-32: Tsukuhara Bridge Tower (Photo By Author)
66
Table 2-7: Project Data For Tsukuhara Bridge
Bridge Name Tsukuhara Bridge

Location Sanyo Expressway over Lake Tsukuhara in Kobe,
Hyogo Prefecture
General Details
Designer Sumitomo Construction Company, Ltd.

Builder Sumitomo Construction Company, Ltd.
Year Completed 1997
Number of Spans 3
Span Layout 215’ / 590’ / 251’
Number of planes of stay-cables 2 per bridge deck (four total for twin decks)
Tower Height 42.6 ft.
Tower

Stay attachment detail at tower Saddle
Girder Width 42 ft.
Girder Details

Girder span/depth ratio at tower 60:1
Type of stay main tension element (MTE) 27 – 0.6” dia. Seven wire grade 270 strand
Stay Spacing Varies, 14.4 ft. to 22.8 ft.
Stay Cables
Stay Supplier N/A

Stay Corrosion Protection Strands individually encased in HDPE sheath, and
bundled in a cement grout filled outer sheath.
Stay Damping High-damping rubber dampers with log decrement
of 3%
Quantities

Girder equivalent thickness (note 3) 4.10 ft.
Girder Conventional Reinforcing (note 2) 37.3 psf
Information sources for Table 2-7: Notes for Table 2-7:

Chilstrom, 200 1. $42 million. 1994 dollars.
Honma, 2001 2. Steel weight divided by deck area
JHPC(g), undated 3. Girder equivalent thickness = Girder
JHPC(h), 1996 concrete volume divided by deck area
Kasuga, 2006
Ogawa, 1998
Sanyo, undated
67
2.8 Discussion
The bridges presented in this chapter represent a sampling of extradosed bridges in
Japan constructed over the first decade of extradosed bridge development. They were
selected because of the significant amount of information available for these structures,
including personal on-site observation by the author and direct contact with the owner,
designer and constructors of these bridges. Several observations can be made from the
observations and reviews provided in this chapter:
This type of structure can be cost effective for several reasons:
o For an extradosed bridge the prestressing is more effectively than a girder
bridge in terms of eccentricity of the prestress over the negative moment
region at the towers
o The prestresing is used more effectively in terms of a higher maximum
stress limit (0.6 f’s for extradosed versus 0.45 f’s for cable stayed, a 33%
reduction in cable material
o Extradosed bridges require no backstay cables and no anchor pier
o The dead load of extradosed bridges is substantially reduced as compared
to girder bridges. This can have important consequences for seismic
design.
o Lower towers are easier to construct than cable stayed bridges, can be
constructed with conventional cranes as opposed to complex jump form
systems typically required for cable stayed bridges.
68
o For a given span length, the girder depth for an extradosed bridge will be
substantially less than a girder type bridge. This can have important cost
implications for the approaches to the bridge.
The line between cable stayed and extradosed is sometimes blurred. Kiso and Ibi
can be considered more advanced versions of extradosed that are could also have
been designed as cable stayed if conventional design standards were applied.
Although the stay cable criteria was the same for all the bridges discussed, the
basis for that criteria was evolving. Rather than simply assuming that an
allowable stress of 0.6 f’s could be used, it became obvious that some structural
rationale was needed for establishing the cable design criteria.
New technology and ideas were tried on almost every new bridge. This new
bridge type was, and continues to be, ripe for innovative ideas.
Extradosed bridge can be adapted to a wide range of cable/girder layouts,
including single plane of cables in the median or multiple planes of cables
supporting single or multiple decks.
Extradosed bridges were considered an aesthetic opportunity, with visual
characteristics superior to a conventional girder bridge.
69
The wide range of difficult geometric conditions that are commonly encountered
in the alignment of highways can be accommodated in extradosed bridges. These
bridges are not just viable for straight and constant width alignments. They can
be adapted to curved bridges and bridges with tapered widths.
The extradosed bridge types was proven as a viable and cost effective new bridge
type, that is continuing to be developed in Japan as well as exported to other parts
of the world.
70
Chapter 3: Extradosed Bridge Design Parameters, Characteristics And Features
3.1 General
It is common for many bridge types to have standard design parameters for the
proportioning of the main elements of the bridge. These are sometimes called “rules of
thumb” and are useful for initial proportioning of a proposed bridge and for verification
of the reasonableness of designs. They are not intended as hard rules, but as general
guidelines to assist an experienced engineer. An example are a set of proportioning rules
for segmental prestressed box girder bridges that were developed when this bridge type
was being introduced in the United States, titled “Feasibility of Standards for Segmental
P/S Box Girder Bridges” (FHWA, 1982). These rules are ideally developed based on
experiences from existing practice that represents actual bridge construction experience,
rather than academic parametric studies. Fortunately, the construction of extradosed
bridges worldwide represents more than 60 bridges, which gives us a database for making
some meaningful statistical evaluations of some important bridge parameters.
This section explores several of these bridge parameters and other characteristics
and features of extradosed prestreseed bridges that may be used to assist in the
proportioning or definition of an extradosed prestressed bridge. Proportioning
recommendations should be used in conjunction with the engineering judgment of an
experienced engineer.
71
Specifically the following will be explored in this chapter:
Materials
Span Length
Side Span Ratios
Multi Span Bridges
Curved Alignment
Tower Height
Girder Depth/Haunch Arrangements
Bridge Width
Aesthetics
Appendix A provides a summary of the database for the existing population of
extradosed bridges worldwide, with key proportioning and design parameters tabulated.
Not all of the desired information has been available for every bridge, given the
worldwide distribution of bridges and the difficulties of obtaining the information,
language barriers, etc. However for most of the bridges, some important information has
been obtained. Also included in Appendix A is a source listing of the tabulated
information. The information comes from a variety of sources, including published
technical papers, conference proceedings, owner, designer or constructor brochures, web
based sources, and in a few cases, personal contact information. Information in
Appendix A has been cross verified by different sources, whenever possible.
Questionable or non verifiable information was not used in the comparisons.
72
3.2 Introduction To The Behavior Of Extradosed Prestressed Bridges
As discussed in Section 1.4, the extradosed bridge type is an intermediate bridge
type between a girder bridge and a cable-stayed bridge. In theory the extradosed bridge is
an externally prestressed girder bridge, where the cables prestress the girder with a large
eccentricity. However in practice, the extradosed bridge is a complex bridge system
where in addition to prestressing the girder the loads are shared between the cables and
the girder in proportion to their stiffness, as a function of the erection procedures, and
following the time dependent deformations that occur in response to creep and shrinkage
of the concrete over the life of the structure. The efficient analysis of extradosed bridge
was probably not possible, at least from a practical viewpoint, until sufficiently powerful
computer software became available in the 1990’s. Most extradosed bridges are analyzed
using sophisticated time-dependent two or three-dimensional computer software that can
handle large numbers of degrees of freedom resulting from complex structural systems.
They build the structure in the computer following a similar erection procedure that will
be used on the actual bridge, accumulating built-in erection stresses, including those
locked-in from the assumed erection equipment and erection procedures. And they
maintain a history of the casting and loading history of each element of the bridge, so that
time dependent creep and shrinkage calculations can be made and applied back into the
indeterminate structural system.
Because so many of the design parameters are under the designers control for this
structural system, abstract parametric studies that vary a single element of the design are,
in the opinion of this author, of limited value. The thought of optimizing the tower height,
girder depths, or other parameters while holding other values constant do not provide the
73
designer with practical information that help develop their design. There are simply too
many variables. For example, a taller tower may provide a more efficient utilization of
the cables for strength considerations, but that geometry can also increase fatigue demand
on the cables. The higher fatigue demands can be accommodated in various ways. The
size of the cables can be increased to lower fatigue stress, the allowable stress of the
cables can be lowered, resulting in higher fatigue capacity, or the girder stiffness can be
increased by either increasing the depth or by changing the haunch proportions to take
some load away from cables.
So rather than approaching the discussion of extradosed bridge design parameters,
characteristic and features from the development of parametric studies, this section
approaches this discussion from a survey of extradosed bridges that have been
constructed. This permits statistical studies of some important parameters, recognizing
that other parameters are not necessarily held constant within the statistical analysis. This
gives the designer better real-world information of the variability and reasonable ranges
of certain parameters. Beyond the design parameters, some other characteristic and
features of extradoses bridge are discussed to stimulate thought on what is possible with
this new bridge type.
3.3 Materials
Extradosed prestressed bridges were originally envisioned as prestressed concrete
bridges (Mathivat, 1982), i.e. bridges made of concrete. The purpose of the extradosed
cables are to efficiently prestress the girder and a concrete girder, as a material, can
clearly benefit from efficient forms of prestressing. Of the 63 extradosed bridges built to
74
date, 57 have been all-concrete bridges. Four are hybrid designs using a combination of
steel and concrete and two of the bridges are a concrete box section that utilizes
corrugated steel webs. The circumstances for these decisions are discussed below. Also,
one additional bridge, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was prepared with two different
designs, one all-concrete (which is being constructed) and one innovative design of a
composite steel/concrete girder. This special case will be discussed separately below.
Four of the existing extradosed prestressed bridges utilized hybrid concrete/steel
designs. These designs use an all-concrete girder for the side spans and a portion of the
main span near the towers, and use either an all-steel orthotropic girder or a composite
steel girder, meaning a steel girder with a concrete composite deck slab, for the middle
portion of the main span. These bridges are:
The Kiso Bridge with a main span of 902 feet
The Ibi Bridge with a main span of 891 feet
The Koror-Babeldoab Bridge with a main span of 810 feet, and
The Golden Ears Bridge with a main span of 793 feet.
The idea of a hybrid bridge is not new, and has been applied to cable-stayed
bridges for the same purpose of reducing the mass of the main span bridge, such as the
Kap Shui Mun Bridge in Hong Kong (Stroh, 1995). The application of hybrid designs
for extradosed bridges represent some of the longest of the extradosed bridges that have
been constructed, and the reason for using the hybrid designs was to reduce the dead load
in the middle of the main span, allowing the extradosed bridge type to be utilized beyond
its normal upper span range. When considering the extradosed bridge type for spans
75
exceeding the normal span range, designers should consider a hybrid design. Another
advantage of this hybrid design is that it allows a shorter side span to be utilized.
Typically, the design provides a balance in the weight of the side span vs. main span to
balance the cantilever construction. By using a lighter main span, the side span can be
shorter, while still providing a balanced design. This may be useful when site constraints
dictate shorter than desired side span lengths.
Two of the existing designs, the Rittoh Bridge and the Himi Bridge, both in
Japan, were designed and constructed with corrugated steel webs. The potential
advantages of using a corrugated steel web include weight savings (with associated
foundation savings for reduces superstructure mass), simplified fabrication and erection
and cost savings (Yasukawa, 2002). These designs can probably best be viewed as
prototype designs to explore this new technology.
The other special case for extradosed bridges was the case for the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge. For this structure with a 515 foot main span, two complete designs
were prepared and were competitively bid by contractors. The first was a “conventional”
all-concrete design. The second was a composite girder design that incorporated a steel
girder with a composite concrete slab over the entire length of the structure. This was the
first attempt of a steel composite extradosed bridge in the world (Stroh, 2003). The Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge was competitively bid in 2009 based on offering the two
different designs to contractors. The intention for these alternative designs was to
stimulate bid competition and ultimately result in a lower cost for the State of
Connecticut. Three bids were received. Two were for the concrete alternative design
and one for the steel alternative design, as follows (reference State of Connecticut, 2009):
76
Bid No. 1 (Concrete) $417 million
Bid No. 3 (Steel) $519 million.
Although the steel alternative was more costly in this bid competition, the
prevalent market conditions for steel raw materials, the competitive labor markets at the
time of bid and a number of other factors can affect individual bid results. The weight
savings for foundations could not be capitalized on this project because the foundations
were let on an advanced contract that must incorporate either the concrete or steel
alternative. However this design demonstrated that a composite steel alternative is viable
for an extradosed bridge, and can be considered for future applications when weight
savings or construction techniques are favorable for the steel composite design.
In general, extradosed prestressed bridges should be considered as, and are most
appropriate for, concrete bridges. For special circumstances, composite steel designs
(steel girders with concrete slab), concrete girders with steel corrugated webs or hybrid
designs with a portion of the main span in steel, may be appropriate for consideration.
3.4 Extradosed Bridge Typical Span Lengths
Extradosed Prestressed bridges are generally considered in the transition region of
span lengths between traditional girder bridges and the longer span bridge types such as
truss, arch and cable-stayed. Sources in Japan, where most of the extradosed bridges
have been constructed, have set the applicable span range for Extradosed Prestressed
bridges to be generally between 100 and 200 meters, or 328 and 656 feet. (Kasuga, 1994
77
and Komiya, 1999). Although even in Japan, a number of these bridges have been
constructed outside of this span range.
Appendix A summarizes 63 extradosed prestressed bridges worldwide where span
length information is available. The spans for extradosed prestressed bridges range from
172 feet to 902 feet, however several of the longer spans are a hybrid design, with a steel
middle section of the main span.
The longest all-concrete extradosed bridge has a span of 886 feet. Figure 3-1
shows the distribution of span lengths for extradosed bridges. The mean span length for
extradosed bridges is 435 feet. The standard deviation of the range of span lengths is 171
feet.
Assuming a normal distribution of a random variable, this means that within one
standard deviation each side of the mean (giving a span range of 265 to 606 feet) we
capture 68% of the data. This range is shown on Figure 3-1. Based on this data a span
range from 300-600 feet would seem a reasonable expected span range for typical bridges
of this type.
Figure 3-2 expands Figure 1-4 to include extradosed bridges. These bridges fill an
important niche between girder bridges and the longer span bridge types of arch, truss
and cable stayed, giving designers another option for bridge type.
78
Figure 3-1: Main Span Length For Extradosed Bridges Worldwide
79
Figure 3-2: Span Range For Common Bridge Types, Adapted From Podolny 1994
3.5 Main Span/Side Span Ratio
The ratio of span length between the main span (L) and side spans (L1) has
influence on the vertical reactions or anchoring forces at the anchor pier, the moment
demands on the deck (positive moments in main span vs. side span, and negative
moments at the tower), and stress changes in the stay cables. A good choice of the ratio
between main and side spans is important for a good design. This ratio is commonly
expressed as the ratio of side span to main span (L1/L)
For cable stayed bridges, Leonhardt provides recommendations on economical
span ratios in graphical from based on a function of dead load to live load ratio of the
bridge, main span length and live load change in stay cable stress (fatigue stress)
(Leonhardt, 1980). For the common case of a steel cable stayed bridge the L1/L ratio
works out to about 0.35. For a heavier concrete cable-stayed bridge this ratio works out
to about 0.42.
80
For three span concrete girder bridges the side/main span ratio should range from
about 0.8 for conventional cast-in-place-on-falsework construction to about 0.65 for
balanced cantilever construction (Poldony, 1982).
Appendix A summarizes the span lengths for 63 extradosed bridges worldwide.
This data was trimmed to 50 bridges for the span length evaluation, due to insufficient or
conflicting information related to side span lengths for 13 of the bridges.
In using this data a distinction must be made between a two span bridge and a
bridge of 3 or more spans. A two-span cable stayed bridge or two-span extradosed bridge
(with only one tower) essentially behaves as one-half of a typical three span (two tower)
arrangement (Figure 3-3), meaning hypothetically we should double the span length
reported for a two-span bridge in order to make a comparison with a three-span bridge.
Three-Span Cable
Stayed Bridge
2L Two-Span Cable
Stayed Bridge
behaves as half a
much longer three-
span bridge
Figure 3-3: Correction Of Span Length For Two-Span Cable Stayed Bridges
Based on a more accurate comparison of the two bridge types for cable-stayed
bridges, Leonhardt recommends that a two span bridge have the span length increased by
a factor of 1.8 when comparing span ratios with a bridge of 3 or more spans (Leonhardt,
81
1980). This same correction was applied to all two-span extradosed bridges, i.e. for two
span bridges, their main span length was increased by a factor of 1.8 when computing
L1/L ratios.
The L1/L ratios for extradosed bridges varied from 0.33 to 0.83 with a mean of
0.57. The standard deviation is 0.12, so one standard deviation each side of the mean
gives a range for L1/L of 0.45 to 0.69. This places extradosed bridges essentially between
the envelope of concrete cable stayed bridges, at 0.42, and balanced cantilever
constructed concrete girder bridges at 0.65.
It should be noted that when evaluating these span ratios, for some bridges
geometric and site constraints set the span ratio rather than structural efficiency. The
good news is that these shorter or longer side span ration can be accommodated in the
design without a major impact. The data of existing bridges indicates a wide range of side
span ratios.
So it would seem that a reasonable recommendation for side to main span ratios
for an extradosed bridge is about 0.6, unless geometric or site constraints would dictate
otherwise.
3.6 Multi-Span Extradosed Prestressed Bridges
Crossings of wide rivers many times have poor foundation conditions, deep water,
large vessel impact considerations, large navigation clearances, or other factors driving
the decision to use a long span bridge. And for very wide rivers or waterways, several
long spans may be required in order to span the waterway.
82
Cable stayed bridges are typically either a two-span or three span arrangements.
These arrangements are ideal for this bridge type in that back-stay cables can be provided
from the anchor pier to the top of tower to stiffen and the tower. Of the more than 1200
examples of cable stayed bridges shown on the Structurae website
http://en.structurae.de/structures/stype/?id=1002, only seven of these cable stayed bridges
are multi span bridges (more than 3 spans). Design of a multi-span cable stayed bridge
presents a special challenge, in that for the central spans there is no opportunity for
backstay cables, and special design considerations must be made to address the resulting
flexibility of the structural system (Leonhardt, 1980). Solutions include the provision of
very stiff towers, as was done for the Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece (Figure 3-4), or
providing crossing backstay cables that are anchored to adjacent towers multiple main
spans, as was done for the Ting Kau Bridge in Hong Kong (Figure 3-5).
Figure 3-4: Rion-Antirion Bridge In Greece – Multi-Span Cable Stayed Bridge With
Stiff Towers (Photo Courtesy Structruae.De, Photographer Inge Kanakaris-Wirti)
83
Figure 3-5: Ting Kau Bridge In Hong Kong - Multi-Span Cable Stayed Bridge With
Crossing Cable From Central Tower (Photo Courtesy Structurae.De, Photographer Frank
Stephan)
Extradosed prestressed bridges do not rely on backstay cables. So, unlike cable
stayed bridges, multi-span extradosed bridge arrangements do not require special
measures. Referring to Appendix A, 19 of the 63 bridges built to date (representing some
30% of the bridges built) were multi-span bridges having between 4 and 9 continuous
spans.
Figure 3-6: Kiso River Bridge In Japan, A Multi-Span Extradosed Prestressed Bridge
(Photo By Author)
84
The extradosed bridge type is well suited to long multi-span bridge arrangements,
and provides a viable bridge alternative for this design condition. An example multi span
extradosed bridge is shown in Figure 3-6.
3.7 Extradosed Bridge Applicability To Curved Bridge Alignments
Modern highway construction frequently required bridges that conform to curved
roadway alignments. For longer span bridges, this becomes a challenge for designers
from both the viewpoints of structural demand and accommodation of the curved
geometry.
From a structural demand
viewpoint, a curved bridge sees torsional
demands resulting from the vertical loads.
These torsional demands are statically
equivalent to a radially directed couple of
forces, (P x e for a single span, see Figure
3-7). This couple acts as a torque and must
be resisted by the structural system. For a Figure 3-7: Torsional Demand On Bridge
Cross Section Due To Vertical Loads
closed cross section, like a box girder, this
torque is carried by shear flow around the closed cross section. For an open cross
section, like individual “I” girders is carried primarily by differential bending of the
webs, referred to as warping. For significant torsional demands, as would result from
tight curvatures or long span bridges, a closed cross section is significantly more efficient
in carrying these torsional demands, and is the preferred structural system (Menn, 1986).
85
The geometrics of design must also accommodate the curvature. This can be a
challenge for some bridge types. For example, a curved cable stayed bridge deck must be
detailed so that the stay cable avoids conflicts with the roadway traffic, considering the
stay cable is essentially a straight line from the top of tower to the connection at the deck
level. This can result in geometric conflicts on the outside radius of the curve and can
require the bridge to be widened along the outside curve to accommodate stay clearances.
In general girder bridges, especially large concrete box girder bridges, can
efficiently accommodate curved roadway alignments. They are commonly used on
curved alignments, although for longer-span conditions the curvature demands can
become quite significant and may limit the span length that can be economically
accommodated. Cable stayed bridges, with a couple of notable exceptions, are not used
for curved roadway alignments. Many cable stayed bridge have relatively flexible open
cross-section decks that are not efficient for resisting torsional demands. As mentioned
above, the stay cable geometry usually creates clearance issues with the roadway traffic
on curved alignments, requiring widening of the structure and limiting the amount of
curvature that can be accommodated to a relatively modest curved alignment. For arch
and truss bridges, the curvature of the main structural elements is in general not desirable
or practical, and modestly curved alignments are sometimes accommodated by
constructing a curved deck on a straight main structural element. This usually requires
some widening or over-building of the arch or truss elements. So in general,
accommodation of curved alignments on any of the longer span bridge types, arch, truss
or cable stayed, is not desirable. Commonly, alignments are adjusted to provide a
straight section for construction of the long-span bridge.
86
Extradosed prestressed bridges offer an added opportunity for the longer-span
bridges in that they can accommodate at least a modest curvature of the roadway
alignment in an efficient manner. Five of the existing extradosed bridges noted in
Appendix A were constructed on curved alignments with radius of curvature as small as
1,312 feet.
The extradosed bridge type can inherently accommodate a modest curvature
without special consideration of the structural system. The girder for extradosed bridges
is typically a concrete box girder section, which can efficiently resist the torsional
demands by shear flow around the closed cross section. The stay cables for extradosed
bridges are typically only provided over a limited region of the span, and do not extent all
the way to midspan of the main span or to the anchor piers in the side spans. Therefore
the geometry conflicts between the stay cables and traffic are minimized.
3.8 Tower Height
An important parameter for extradosed bridges, and one that differentiates them
from cable stayed bridges, is the tower height. The tower height directly influences
several other parameters, such as the stay stress variation under live load (fatigue range),
the cable inclination, and the proportion of loads shared between the deck and the cables.
As discussed in section 1.4, the fundamental distinction between a cable-stayed bridge
and an extradosed bridge is the role of the stay cables. The basic role of the cables in a
cable stayed bridge is to develop elastic vertical reactions. In an extradosed bridge they
are to prestress the girder. As shown in Figure 3-8, the force in a stay cable, “P”, can be
express as vertical and horizontal components;
87
P
Pv = P x sinα α Pv
Ph = P x cosα Ph
Figure 3-8: Stay Force In A Cable-Stayed Bridge
The taller the tower, the smaller the size of cable is required to carry a given load.
As discussed by Leonhardt there is a limit to the economical tower height because even
though the cable cost reduces with higher towers, the tower cost increases. Leonhardt
places the optimal ratio of the tower height (H) to main span (L) for cable-stayed bridge
between 1/4 to 1/5 (Leonhardt, 1980).
For extradosed bridges, the role of the cables is to act as external post-tensioning
tendons and provide prestress to the deck. For a prestressed girder bridge, as shown in
Figure 3-9 the post tensioning provides beneficial axial compression and a beneficial
prestress moment that counteracts the dead load by the commonly recognized expression
for the extreme fiber stresses due to prestress.
σ=
Where: σ = extreme fiber stress
P = prestress force
88
A = cross-sectional area of girder
S = section modulus of girder
e = eccentricity of prestress (distance from CG of girder to line of action
of prestress force.
e
P P
P P
CG Girder CG Girder
Figure 3-9: Prestress Action Figure 3-10: Prestress Action

On Girder Bridge On Extradosed Bridge
For an extradosed bridge, the post tensioning is elevated using a short tower and
provides a much larger eccentricity, and therefore more efficient use of the prestressing
steel (Figure 3.10). However, if we continue raising the tower, at some point the vertical
component of the cable reaches a force level that starts to significantly carry the vertical
live load of the structure. This also means that the fatigue stress in the cable becomes
more significant, and the bridge starts to behave more like a cable stayed bridge, rather
than an externally prestressed girder. According to Mathivat, the optimal ratio to tower
height to span length should be on the order of 1/15 (Mathivat, 1988). Although Mathivat
did not provide a basis for this recommendation, one may derive an approximation for the
tower height limit based on a simple relation of the stay geometry and target fatigue
limits.
89
If we assume a geometric distribution of stays as shown in Figure 3-11, we can
determine, based on a tower height to span length ratio of 1/15, that the vertical
component of stay force, equal to about 17% of the total stay force (the sin of the steepest
stay angle).
H
α
S/8 S/4 S/8 S/8 S/4 S/8
Figure 3-11: Assumed Distribution Of Stay Cables Along Span
Insert H/S = 1/15
We can also establish a limit on the vertical component of the stay force based on
a target fatigue limit. In simple terms, AASHTO provides a nominal 18 ksi fatigue stress
90
limit for conventional prestress (presumably a cable stressed to the 0.6 f’s limit for
extrasosed cables should be acceptable for this fatigue limit) (see section 4.2). We can
express this as a fraction of the total stay force by dividing by the maximum permissible
stay force of 60% f’s, which gives a live load limit to compare with the vertical load limit
based on geometry in the preceding paragraph. However, we need to recognize that the
fatigue truck is lighter than a conventional live load truck in AASHTO, and it has a lower
impact factor (AASHTO 2010). So we need to increase the 18 ksi fatigue stress target by
the difference in load factors for service vs fatigue loading (1/0.75) and by the ratio of the
service vs fatigue impact factors (1.3/1.15). Therefore we can calculate the target vertical
limit on live load as a fraction of total stay force as:
This is the same limit on the vertical component of live load that results from Mathivat’s
limit of span to tower height of 1/15.
Of the 64 extradosed bridges summarized in Appendix A, 40 have sufficient data
to be included in the tower height evaluation. However, it is noted that some adjustments
and interpretation of the data must be made to properly evaluate the tower height
parameter.
As with the side span ratio (Section 3.5), a distinction must be made between a
two span bridge and a bridge of 3 or more spans. A two span cable stayed bridge, or
extradosed bridge (with only one tower) essentially behaves as one-half of a typical three
span (two tower) arrangement. This means that the H/L ratio cannot be treated the same
91
way for these two span arrangements. For cable-stayed bridges, it is recommended that a
two span bridge have the span length increased by a factor of 1.8 when comparing tower
height H/L ratios with a bridge of 3 or more spans (Leonhardt, 1980). This same
correction was applied to all two-span extradosed bridges when including their tower
height data in the tabulations, i.e. for two span bridges, their main span length was
increased by a factor of 1.8 when computing H/L ratios.
The tower height reported in the literature is the height to the physical top of
tower. Structurally, we need to relate the tower height at the upper cable to the span
length, since that upper cable sets the stay inclination and structural behavior of the
bridges. So a minor correction is applied to the reported tower heights, reducing the
reported heights by 1 meter (3.28 feet) when including the tower height in computing the
H/L ratios. This one meter is an approximation, based on review of several extradosed
bridges where detailed information was available, and was applied to all bridge data.
Also, four of the bridges in Appendix A were excluded from the data base
because their tower height to span ratio clearly placed them in the cable-stayed bridge
category, and the author did not want to skew the data. These bridges are the Xianshen
River Bridge, Orkojahuira Bridge, Choqueyapu Bridge, and Kantutani Bridge (Janberg,
2010). Each of these has a span/tower height ratios ranging from 2.5 to 3.2, clearly in the
range of cable stayed bridges, even though in the literature they are identified as
extradosed bridges.
Figure 3-12 summarizes an evaluation of the remaining 40 extradosed prestressed
bridges that have span length and tower height data. The numerical calculation for mean
92
and standard deviation is based on a discrete random variable calculation using the actual
data.
Figure 3-12: Tower Height To Main Span Ratios (HL) For The Population Of Existing
Extradosed Prestressed Bridges
The mean tower height ratio for extradosed bridges is 1/9.75 and going one
standard deviation each side of the mean gives a range of tower height ratios from 1/6.9
to 1/12.6. Clearly, the population of existing extradosed bridges has not followed
Mathivat’s original suggestion that a 1/15 height/span ratio would be the optimal value.
Based on existing bridges tower heights have been used are slightly taller that
recommended by Mathivat and a suggested typical H/L ratio of 1/10 would appear
appropriate, or a H/L range of 1/7 to 1/13, based on the population of existing bridges..
93
3.9 Deck Depth/Haunch Arrangements
For cable stayed bridges, the stay cables carry most of the dead and live loads and
the deck structure (girder) is proportioned with adequate strength and stiffness to span
between and carry any local load effects between the stays, to carry the overall global
flexural loading from the entire stay/girder structural system deflections and to carry the
horizontal compression from the stays. For cable-stayed bridges the depth to span ratio
can range from values to 50 to more than 250, representing very flexible decks (Poldony,
1982).
For a girder bridge the loads are carried by flexure and shear in the girder, and the
girder depth is proportioned for strength and stiffness to carry these loads. The
proportioning of girder bridges is directly dependent on the construction method, and
whether the girder is constant depth or variable depth (haunched). For balanced cantilever
erection methods, recommended girder depth/span ratios are as follows (from Menn,
1986):
For constant depth sections: depth/span = 22
For variable depth sections: depth/span = 17 at supports
depth/span = 50 at midspan
Extradosed prestressed bridges are typically constructed in balanced cantilever
and their behavior is similar to a girder bridge constructed in balanced cantilever, but
with more efficient external prestressing. Therefore we would expect a reduction in the
94
structural depth at the support. Mathivat recommended a depth/span ratio between 30
and 35 for extradosed bridges (Mathivat, 1982).
Of the population of existing extradosed bridges shown in Appendix A, 29 of
those structures are variable depth girders (haunched) and have sufficient information
available to examine the depth span ratios. For those bridges, there is a wide range of
deck depth/span ratios ranging from 13 to 40 with a mean ratio 28.2. Based on an
assumption of a normal distribution of the data, the standard deviation of the data is 8,
giving a range to depth/span ratios from 20 to 36 for one standard deviation each side of
the mean.
In general, we would expect that the depth/span relation should be nearly a
constant, based on the efficient design of the structural system. An example is for
concrete box girder bridges, where there was shown to be strong correlations between
girder depth and span length (FHWA, 1982). However for extradosed bridges, when the
data is plotted for the depth/span ratio as a function of span length, there is a clear trend
for increasing depth span ratios for longer spans (Figure 3-13).
This indicates that for extradosed bridges, the structural proportioning is more
under control of the designer, meaning that the designer can control the load distribution
between the girder and cable system. For longer-span extradosed bridge the stay system
is controlled more by fatigue demands, placing more demand on the girder and trending
towards a slightly deeper girder for longer span bridges.
95
Figure 3-13: - Plot Of Depth/Span Ratio As A Function Of Span Length
Figure 3-14: Plot Of Depth/Span Ratio As A Function Of Span Length (300-600 Foot
Spans)
96
If we limit the span range for the data to the 300 to 600 foot span range that is
considered most viable for extradosed prestressed bridges, then the existing depth span
data is plotted as a function of span length as shown in Figure 3-14. This is only slightly
shifted from Mathivat’s recommendations of a depth/span range of 30-35 for extradosed
bridges. Based on the existing bridges a slightly wider span range of 25-35 would seem
appropriate.
The girder depth at mid-span for an extradosed bridge should be similar to a
girder bridge constructed in balanced cantilever. The moment and shear demands of both
systems are similar at the mid-span location. As previously noted Menn recommends a
depth/span ratio of about 50 for the mid span region of continuous girder bridges
constructed in balanced cantilever. Analyzing the data in Appendix A, the mean mid-
span depth ratio for variable depth bridges is 46, agreeing closely with Menn’s
recommendations. Therefore, a recommended mid-span depth/span ratio for variable
depth extradosed bridges is 50.
About 10% of the existing extradosed bridges use a constant depth girder, rather
than a haunched, variable depth arrangement. As previously noted, for a constant depth
girder bridge a depth/span ratio of about 22 would be expected. The depth/span ratio
used for extradosed bridges ranges from 25 to 39.8, with a mean ratio of 32. It is noted
that a constant depth girder was typically used for shorter span length extradosed bridges,
with a mean span length of only 285 ft. for the constant depth bridges.
In general a variable depth girder section would be expected for extradosed
bridges, in recognition of the higher negative moment demand at the towers. However
97
for short-span extradosed bridges (less than 300 ft. span) a constant depth section may be
considered.
Figure 3-15: Extradosed Bridge Deck Widths For The Population Of Existing Bridges
98
3.10 Bridge Deck Width
Extradosed prestressed bridges have been used for a wide variation of bridge deck
widths, ranging from 30 to 112 feet wide. Appendix A has 44 bridges with deck width
data as shown in Figure 3-15. The mean deck width is 65 feet and there is a relatively
uniform distribution of deck width variations between the two extremes.
One would expect that the extradosed bridge concept would function better with
relatively narrow deck widths, due to more direct load path from the girder webs to the
cables on a narrow bridge (Figure 3-16). For a wide bridge, either a strong diaphragm or
an external arrangement of post-tensioning must be provided to transfer the intermediate
web loads to the stay cables (Figure 3-17). Either of these adds cost and complexity to the
design and construction.
Figure 3-16: Narrow Deck Figure 3-17: Wide Deck Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed Bridge
However, even with the added complexities, there is a relatively even distribution
of constructed bridge deck widths for extradosed bridges. It is the author’s opinion that
this is probably a reflection of the construction of bridges to the required roadway widths
in response to traffic demands, as opposed to structural efficiency, and that given the
99
option, a narrow extradosed bridge that allows a direct force transfer between the box
girder webs and the stay cables, is preferable.
3.11 Aesthetics
A common theme for the selection of exradosed bridges are the aesthetic
opportunities for this bridge type, for example the Odawara Blueway Bridge as discussed
in Oishi, 1996; The Tskuhara Bridge as discussed in Ogawa, 1998; The Rittoh Bridge as
discussed in a Japan Public Highway Corporation reference (undated); and the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridges, as discussed in Stroh, 2003, all list the aesthetic opportunities
of this bridge type as a factor in the bridge type selection decision.
The aesthetic or visual development of an extradosed bridge design can be
approached on two levels. First, the overall proportioning of the bridge includes
selection of the span layout, stay cable configuration (one or multiple planes of stays),
and stay arrangement (harp or fan arrangement), tower height, and girder depth and
haunch arrangement. Then on a more detailed level, the tower shape can be selected to
provide visual interest and other architectural features of the design can be refined, such
as railings, colors and textures, aesthetic lighting, or other design features.
3.11.1 Stay Cable Configuration
An extradosed bridge can be developed with one plane of stay cables supporting
the deck, two planes or multiple planes. Examples include the Ibi River Bridge in Japan
with one plane of stay cables in the median of the roadway (Figure 3-18), the Odawara
100
Blueway Bridge in Japan with two plans of stay cables (Figure 3-19) and the
Miyakodagawa Bridge in Japan with three planes of stay cables (Figure 3-20).
Figure 3-18: Ibi River Bridge

With One Plane Of Stay Cables
Photo By Author
Figure 3-19: Odawara Blueway

Bridge With Two Planes Of Stay
Cables Photo By Author
101
Figure 3-20: Miyakodagawa
Bridge With Three Planes Of Stay
Cables. Photo By Author
3.11.2 Stay Distribution
The stays can be distributed along the tower either in a fan arrangement, where
the cables are concentrated to the tops of the tower and radiate towards the deck, or in a
harp arrangement where the cables are parallel and evenly spaced. An example of a fan
arrangement if the Tsukuhara Bridge in Japan (Figure 3-21), and an example of a harp
arrangement is the Sunniberg Bridge in Switzerland (Figure 3-22).
Figure 3-21: Tsukuhara Bridge

With Fan Arrangement Of Stay
Cables. Photo By Author
102
Figure 3-22: Sunniberg Bridge
With Harp Stay Cable
Arrangement. Photo Courtesy
Of Structurae.De,
Photographer Nicolas Janberg
3.11.3 Tower Configuration
Towers for extradosed bridges do not have the same design flexibility as cable-
stayed bridge towers due to their smaller scale. For a cable-stayed bridge, the towers are
substantially taller, and can use “A” shapes or delta shapes that join the tower legs over
the roadway. Extradosed bridge towers are not tall enough for this type of arrangement
and tend to be essentially free-standing vertical leg towers. Nonetheless, this has not
limited designers’ creativity and the towers for extradosed prestressed bridges have been
a focal point for the visual expression of this bridge type. Many extradosed bridges have
incorporated visually striking tower arrangements, ranging from simple but elegant
shapes and shown in Figures 3-23 and 3-24 for the Tsukuhara Bridge and Ibi River
Bridge in Japan to the more stylized tower of the Rittoh Bridge (Figure 3-25), that is
located in the Shiga Prefecture Nature Park in Japan. This bridge is themed as a “Bridge
in Flight” with the shape of the tower as the image of cranes in flight (Yasukawa, 2002).
103
Figure 3-23: Tsukuhara Bridge Towers. Photo By Author
Figure 3-24: Ibi River Bridge Tower,

Japan. Photo By Author.
104
Figure 3-25: Rittoh Bridge Tower, Japan. Photo Courtesy Of Takashi Kosaka
3.11.4 Other Architectural Features On Extradosed Bridges
Extradosed bridges are frequently considered as signature bridges or landmark
bridges, that warrant attention to visual detail beyond the basic structural form of the
bridges. This can take several forms, such as non-structural architectural elements,
handrail or pedestrian walkway features, or feature aesthetic lighting. The unique visual
signature and above-deck feature of the towers and cables on extradosed bridges has
encouraged and inspired designers to incorporate many creative architectural features in
the visual development of this bridge type.
Examples of these features include entry markers for the Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge in New Haven Connecticut, commemorating this structure as a memorial to the
105
December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor (Figure 3-26). These markers are highlighted
in gold leaf lettering and illuminated at night.
Figure 3-26: Entry Markers For The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge. Image Courtesy Of
URS Corporation
Also for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, aesthetic lighting is provided to
reinforce the memorial quality of the bridge. Subdued white lighting washes the tower
and anchor pier surfaces and “port-hole” lights are illuminated along the deck. On
special days, such as Pearl Harbor Day and 4th of July, brilliant light cannons are
illuminated from the central towers, shining towards the heavens (Figure 3-27).
106
Figure 3-27: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Aesthetic Lighting. Image Courtesy URS
Corp.
For the Odawara Blueway Bridge located at the mouth of Odawara Port, the
coloring of the stay cables were graded from blue near the top of the towers to white at
the girder level (Figure 3-28), providing a harmony with the natural setting at this site
(Oishi, 1996).
Figure 3-28 Color Graded Stay Cables For The Odawara Blueway Bridge, Japan.
Photo By Author.
107
The decision to use an extradosed bridge is many times a complex decision
including several considerations. Cost, constructability, and durability always are key
factors. However many owners and communities are seeking their infrastructure projects
to enhance their quality of life, in addition to providing basic mobility. The aesthetic
opportunities for this bridge type provide a fresh opportunity for bridge engineers to
explore a new bridge form, and continued creativity in structural form and details will
undoubtedly continue as the use of these bridges become more widespread.
3.12 Summary
This chapter has provided an assessment of a number of design parameters,
characteristics and features that can assist the designer in the general proportioning of
extradosed bridges and the assessment of the applicability of extradosed bridges to a
particular set of site conditions. They are not intended as fixed design rules, but rather
rules-of-thumb to help guide the experienced designer.
3.12.1 Materials
The grider of extradosed prestressed bridges is most commonly concrete. The
basic premise of extradosed bridges is to prestress the girder with external post tensioning
cables (the stay cables), and concrete is an ideal material for this application. Concrete is
strong in compression and weak in tension, and the combination of the axial compression
and the flexural moment counter to the applies moments can be tuned to optimize this
material. However there can also be special applications of steel to extradosed bridges;
in several forms:
108
A hybrid design, with an all-concrete girder except the central portion of the main
span uses a orthotropic or composite steel girder. The weight savings for the
main span can allow extradosed bridges to be used for longer spans or for cases
where short side spans are required by site conditions.
A composite design that uses a corrugated steel web with concrete top and bottom
flanges, for weight savings. This can be important for high seismic regions.
A composite design that uses a steel box girder with a composite concrete deck
slab. The resultant weight savings can reduce stay cable, tower and foundation
costs.
3.12.2 Applicable Span Range
Extradosed bridge have been typically applied to main-spans ranging from 300 to
600 feet. This provides an alternative to conventional girder bridges that tend to have
larger girder structural depths for long spans, and an option to the traditional long-span
bridge types of arch, truss and cable-stayed bridges, that are at the low end of their
applicability in this span range. These limits represent one standard deviation from the
mean of the existing population of extradosed bridges, and should not be construed to be
maximum limits. Extradosed bridges have been constructed with span lengths as little as
200 feet or up to 900 feet, and depending on site conditions may be appropriate for the
wider range of span lengths.
109
3.12.3 Main Span/Side Span Proportions
The ratio of side span to main span lengths can be an important parameter for the
economical design of the girder. For a three-span girder bridge this ideal ratio is about
0.65 in order to balance the positive and negative moments. For a three-span cable
stayed bridge this ration is about 0.42 to balance cable demand and to prevent large
uplifts at the anchor pier.
For extradosed bridge there is a wider range of acceptable side span/main span
ratios because the cables and girder share the load and can have some design flexibility in
their proportioning. An assessment of the existing population of extradosed bridge gives
a recommended side/main span ratio of 0.6 with a range between 0.45 and 0.69.
It is noted that there can be important consequence at the low end of this range. If
the side span is too short, then uplift can result at the end piers under some live load
conditions. This must be resisted by mechanical hold down devices, by ballasting the
girder to give a positive reaction on the bearings, or other means.
3.12.4 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Multi-Span Bridges
Cable stayed bridge rely on backstay cables that connect the anchor pier to the top
of tower in order to stiffen the tower. They are ideal for a two-span or a three-span
application since these backstay cables naturally exist. However for multi-span bridge,
such as a four-span cable-stayed bridge, the central tower does not have backstays, and
presents a particular design challenge. Solutions include provision of a stiff central
tower, or providing additional cables from the top of the central tower to adjacent towers
110
(called cross-cables). Neither of these solutions are particularly elegant, and there are
very few examples of multi span cable stayed bridge in the world.
For extradosed bridges, the structural system does not rely on backstay cables,
and they are ideally situated for multi span applications. Extradosed bridge can be
economically used for long over-water crossings requiring long-spans and several towers,
providing an important option to bridge engineers for this design condition.
3.12.5 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Curved Or Tapered Bridge Alignments
The real-world alignment of roadways often required bridges to be on curved
alignments or alignments that include tapering widths of the roadway to accommodate
entrance and exit ramps. For most of the longer-span bridge types, such as cable-stayed,
arch and truss bridges these alignmets can present a challenge or even a limitation of the
applicability of the bridge type to a particular site. The stay cables can conflict with the
vehicle clearance envelope, or the torsional demands of the curved alignment can put
high demands of the structural system.
For extradosed bridges, the cables extend over only a portion of the spans, and
they typically are in a vertical plane or are inclined outward, both of which minimize
clearance conflicts with the vehicle clearance envelope. Extradosed bridges typically
utilize large box girders, that are very efficient in resisting the torsional demands of a
curved or tapered alignments. The existing population of extradosed bridge has several
examples of extradosed bridge on complex curved or tapered alignments. They provide
the designer with an added bridge type option for these challenging alignments.
111
3.12.6 Tower Height
The height of the tower, or more specifically the ratio of the tower height to main
span length, is an important design parameter for extradosed bridges. In fact it is one of
the key defining parameters for the definition of an extradosed bridge as it affects the
design load in the cable and the fatigue stress in the cable. As the tower height increases,
the bridge begins to behave more like a cable-stayed bridge.
As assessment of existing extradosed bridges places the tower height to main span
ratio between 1/7 to 1/13, with a typical value of 1/10.
3.12.7 Girder Depth/Girder Haunch Proportions
Another important design parameter for the initial sizing of bridge is the girder
depth proportions. This also includes the decision in whether to use a constant depth
(parallel flange) girder, or a variable depth (haunched) girder.
Extradosed bridges typically are constructed by a balanced cantilever erection
method that cantilevers the girder out from the towers. There is an advantage for using a
deeper girder at the tower, as it allows the larger cantilever before the installation of the
first stay cable. Therefore extradosed bridges typically use haunched girders, except for
very short spans, or for special cases that are not constructed in balanced cantilever.
An evaluation of existing extradosed bridge reveals a typical span/depth ratio
between 25:1 to 35:1 at the tower and 50:1 at midspan.
112
3.12.8 Bridge Deck Width
The bridge deck width is not a design parameter; it is typically set as part of the
roadway traffic design requirements. It is, however, a design feature in that it can affect
the economy of the design and could influence choice of bridge type for a particular site.
Existing Extradosed brides have been used for a wide range of bridge widths,
ranging from 30 to 110 feet in width. It is observed that even though extradosed bridges
have been used for wide bridges, there are special design considerations to this
application. The vertical load in the box girder is basically carried by shear in the webs.
At each stay cable location, a portion of that load is carried by the stay cable. This means
for box girders that have more than two webs (wide bridges) a load path must be
provided from the interior webs to the stay cables. There are several options for this load
transfer (transverse diaphragms, draped transverse post-tensioning), but they all add
complications (and cost) to the design. It should be noted if the designer has a choice, the
most efficient cross section for an extradosed bridge with be for a relatively narrow
bridge with two webs. For example, a bridge carrying two lanes in each direction can be
more efficiently designed as two separate decks, rather than one wide deck. However,
this should not be considered a hard design rule, as extradosed bridge can (and have)
been designed to a wide range of bridge widths.
3.12.9 Aesthetics
For a number of existing extradosed bridges, one of the factors in choosing an
extradosed bridge was the opportunity with this bridge type to provide a visually striking
bridge. The extradosed bridge type has the above deck features of towers and stay cables
113
that can provide an interesting visual character to the bridge crossing experience. And
the relatively thin deck (compared to a conventional girder bridge) can provide a graceful
and well-proportioned bridge for a long-span application.
Examples of several extradosed bridge are provided in the chapter that have
special architectural features to enhance the visual experience of the bridge. These
include, in addition to the basic form of the bridge, architectural shaping of the towers,
visual enhancement features (such as entry columns and colored cables), and aesthetic
lighting to feature the bridge at night.
114
Chapter 4: Stay Cable Design Issues
4.1 Introduction
The previous Chapter reviewed a variety of general proportioning and detailing
factors that “define” extradosed bridges, among which was the tower height. The tower
height is a particularly important parameter because it influences how the loads are
shared between the cables and the girder. Specifically how the live loads are carried, and
how much change in live load, or fatigue, the cable is subjected to. The cable fatigue
demand is central to the definition of extradosed prestressed bridges because the fatigue
capacity of a cable is directly related to the maximum stress limit in the cable. For cable
stayed bridges, the allowable maximum stress on the cable is set in order to provide an
appropriate fatigue range. That is, the maximum stress in the cable is set low enough that
there is an appropriate fatigue range available for live load variation. For an extradosed
we can set the maximum stress of the cable higher, because there is less fatigue demand.
This provides a more efficient use of the cable material for extradosed bridges, and
consequently, cost savings.
The tower height alone does not sufficiently control the fatigue stress range in the
stay cables to a level of accuracy to safely and consistently establish appropriate
maximum stress limits. In order to provide a more comprehensive assessment of
extrasosed bridges, there needs to be extradosed-bridge-specific criteria on the design of
the stay cables, specifically, the establishment of the maximum allowable stress and the
115
establishment of appropriate fatigue ranges based on that maximum stress. The primary
purpose of this chapter is to investigate these requirements and provide recommendations
on appropriate maximum stress and fatigue stress design criteria for extradosed bridges.
As a secondary purpose, this chapter will also address some of the design and testing
issues necessary for consideration of extradosed bridges.
Stay cables can be assembled by combining a number of individual tensile
elements to make a cable. These tensile elements of the cables can be of several forms
including seven-wire grade 270 post-tensioning strands, high strength bars, parallel wires,
or locked-coil wires. Around the world, and almost exclusively in the United States,
seven-wire grade 270 post tensioning strand have in recent times been the stay cable
material of choice. This applies both to cable-stayed bridges and extradosed bridges.
These seven wire strands are the same type of strand that is used for conventional post-
tensioning applications, and are quite common, economical, and widely available. For the
purposes of this dissertation, we will limit our discussion to stay cables that are
constructed of multiple seven-wire grade 270 post-tensioning strands. So to begin, we
will first investigate the performance of an individual 7-wire strand that makes up the
stay cable.
4.2 Fatigue Performance Of Individual Seven-Wire Prestressing Strands
In the United States, prestressing strand is manufactured and tested to American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, typically ASTM A416 for uncoated,
stress-relieved or low-relaxation seven-wire strand. Today, the strand used is almost
exclusively of grade 270, meaning the tensile strength (f’s) is 270 ksi. (Some older
116
structures, however, may have used grade 250 strand.) This seven-wire strand is used in a
wide range of applications, including prestressing applications where the individual
strands are stressed before placement of the concrete, then released after concrete
hardens; and post-tensioning operations where the strands are grouped into tendons that
are placed in ducts in the concrete and stressed after the concrete hardens. The post
tensioning ducts are typically grouted after stressing. Both prestressing and post-
tensioning are used for a wide variety of concrete beams, slabs and other structural
elements, for concrete piling, and for use in temporary works such as strand jacking and
other lifting operations. Seven-wire strand is also used and the main tension element for
cable stayed bridges and for extradosed prestressed bridges.
For typical prestressing or post tensioning applications, fatigue is not generally a
controlling load condition. However AASHTO Bridge Specifications (AASHTO, 2010)
provide guidance on the permissible stress range for post tensioning strand that is curved
to prescribed radii. In Section 5.5.3.3 AASHTO limits the stress range as follows:
18.0 ksi for tendon radius greater than 30 ft.
10.0 ksi for tendon radius not less than 12 ft.
Interpolation between these values is allowed. For radius less than 12 ft., or where metal-
to-metal fretting of the strands is a concern, then AASHTO refers the designer to the
literature.
The stress limits for strands in the above typical prestress and post tensioning
applications are limited to 0.74 f’s at the time of release of prestress, although the average
stress level in the tendons is usually less than this due to friction between the strand and
117
duct, and due to prestress loss due to creep and shrinkage time-dependent effects. The
average tendon stress is commonly on the order of 0.6 f’s after all losses.
The fatigue performance of the prestressing strand is similar for all steels, in that
the allowable fatigue stress range (S) is a function of the number of stress cycles (N).
This relation shows a reduction in in the allowable stress range as the number of repeated
stress cycles increases. It is usually plotted on a log-log scale and is called the S-N
diagram, or sometimes called the Wöhler Curve, after August Wöller, a German engineer
who was noted for his systematic investigations on metal fatigue. An S-N diagram for
common structural steel is shown in Figure 4-1 (Adapted from AASHTO, 2010)
100
Carbon Steel Fatigue Performance Category A
Infinite Fatigue Life
Stress Range (KSI)
10
1
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 Number of Cycles 1.00E+07 1.00E+08
Figure 4-1: Stress Range Versus Number Of Cycles For Structural Steel (S-N Curve)
Adapted From AASHTO, 2010
For an individual 7-wire strand, the fatigue performance is function of the
maximum stress in the strand. A strand stressed to a higher maximum stress will have a
reduced fatigue stress range capacity, at a given number of stress cycles, as compared the
same strand that is stressed to a lower maximum stress. As applied to cable stayed bridge
118
design, this is discussed in Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and
Installation (PTI 2007). PTI limits the maximum stress in the strand for stay cables to
0.45 f’s, and by doing so provides a permissible single element stress range of 33 ksi for
the strand at 2 million cycles, as shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2: S-N Curve For A Seven-Wire Single-Strand Stressed To A Maximum Stress
Of 0.45 f's
This fatigue range is usually adequate for the design of cable stayed bridges
without controlling the design to an excessive degree. This single-element S-N curve
also provides the basis of fatigue design for the multi-strand cables in cable stayed
bridges.
For an extradosed bridge, we are interested in stressing the cables to a higher
maximum stress, since the fatigue stress range demand is less than for cable-stayed
119
bridges. There is limited information on the development of S-N curves for prestressing
strand with other maximum stress limits. There was a comprehensive study published in
1983 that investigated the fatigue performance of prestressing strand (Paulson, 1983).
This study summarized a large amount of data from 13 previous studies concerning
strand fatigue performance, and supplemented that data with a series of tests with wire
from different manufactures. Most of these tests were conducted with maximum strand
stresses at or above 0.6f’s. The goal of this study was to develop a S-N curve for
prestressing strand, and did so without regard to variances in the maximum strand stress.
The curve was set as a “lower limit” that had a 95% probability that 97.5% of the failure
points fell above the line. The resulting S-N expression is Eq. 4-1 and is plotted on
Figure 4-3 (Paulsen):
............................................. Eq. 4-1
Where:
N = Number of fatigue stress cycles
S = Stress Range (ksi)
In Japan, where there have been a number of extradosed bridges built with cables
that have a maximum stress of 0.6 f’s, Kasuga reported the S-N curve shown in Figure 4-
3 (Kasuga,1994). This curve was developed by the Express Highway Research
Foundation in Japan, and has been used for many of the extradosed bridges constructed in
Japan.
120
Figure 4-3: S-N Curves For Seven Wire Strand At A Maximum Stress Of 0.6 f's, From
Various Literature Sources Shown Above
In recognition of this limited data, the first extradosed bridge in the United States,
The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, included single strand fatigue testing at maximum
stress levels of 0.6 f’s (Schwager, 2010). These results are also plotted on Figure 4-3.
This curve is based on three test-specimens.
It should be noted that Grade 270 prestressing strand is a material that has near
universal application worldwide. Typical strand sizes of 0.5” and 0.6” are soft converted
over to metric sizes of 12.7 and 15.2 mm and the maximum tensile strength of 270 ksi is
soft converted to 1860 MPa. So the strand material used in the Unites States, or in Japan,
is the same, and the S-N curve data would be expected to be consistent.
121
The results of the three sources of information for single strand fatigue
performance for seven-wire strand at a maximum stress level of 0.6 f’s do not provide a
precise agreement, as may be expected from experimental data collected under varying
conditions. They do, however reinforce that use of the S-N data from Kasuga is
conservative, and therefore appropriate for further development of multi-strand cable
criteria for extradosed bridges.
4.3 Current Stay-Cable Design Criteria For Cable-Stayed Bridges
The current basis in the United States for design of the multi-strand cables in
cable-stayed bridges is the Post Tensioning Institute “Recommendations for Stay Cable
Design, Testing and Installation”. The most current edition is the 5th Ed., dated 2007
(PTI, 2007). This specification was developed specifically for cable-stayed bridges,
meaning, among other things, that it was developed to conform to the expected fatigue
demands for cable-stayed bridges.
The fatigue capacity discussed in Section 4.2 is based on an individual 7-wire
strand. This is sometimes called the single-element fatigue performance. The design of
the stay cable, however, must be based on the performance of the group of bundled
strands that make up a cable. The philosophy adopted by PTI for performance of the
cable, is to start with the single 7-wire element fatigue capacity of 33 ksi (Figure 4-2),
then reduce this by a value, Δ1, to cover quality assurance considerations, and a value, Δ 2,
to cover length effects, anchorage stress risers and factor of safety. The quality assurance
value considers the difference from the performance of an individual strand element
compared to a group of strands forming a cable. It includes interaction effects, cable
122
twist, and assembly variances, and is based on experience from load testing results of
many assembled cables. For strand cables the Δ1 correction used by PTI is 10 ksi, and the
Δ2 correction is 4.93 ksi. Figure 4-4 shows application of these corrections, resulting in
an allowable fatigue stress range for a cable comprised of multiple 7-wire strands of 19
ksi at 2 million cycles, based on a maximum stress of 45% of the ultimate strength of the
strand (PTI, 2007).
Figure 4-4: PTI Fatigue Safety Philosophy For Stay Cables Of 7-Wire Strand.
The PTI 3rd edition and earlier was based on an allowable stress design procedure
where the cables were sized based on a maximum stress of 0.45 f’s for Group I loading,
then a check of the fatigue range of 18.1 ksi based on the selected cable size. If based on
this check the fatigue limit is not met, then fatigue governs, and the cable size is
increased to reduce the stress range.
123
The current PTI specification is based on a Load Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) philosophy, meaning that the four basic limit states of service, strength, fatigue
and extreme event must satisfy for the following expression:
…………..………….Eq. 4-2
Where:
η= Load modifier for operational importance, redundancy, and
ductility; taken as 1.0 for stay cables.
γi = Load factor for load “i”
Qi = Load force effect “i”
ϕ= Material factor
Rn = Nominal Resistance
Rr = Factored Resistance
The load factors are as specified in Table 3.4.1-1 of the AASHTO Bridge Code
(AASHTO, 2010). The ϕ factors are given in PTI as:
Strength A (Axial only) ϕ = 0.65
Strength B (Axial + Bending) ϕ = 0.75
Fatigue ϕ = 0.95
Extreme Event ϕ = 1.0
No ϕ-value is provided for service, implying no service check is required for the
cables. The Strength A case, considering the combination of η, γ i, and ϕ factors, was
intended to give a similar design as a cable designed by service conditions in the previous
allowable stress versions of the specification.
124
4.4 Current Stay Design Criteria For Extradosed Bridges
As noted in Section 4.2, in the United States the current governing design criteria
for stay cables is the Post Tensioning Institute “Recommendations for Stay Cable Design,
Testing and Installation”, 5th Edition. Although this specification was developed
specifically for cable-stayed bridges, there has been in recent years an attempt to include
extradosed bridges in the specification. The 5th edition was the first PTI specification to
mention extradosed bridges. A new section 5.10 was introduced with a commentary that
states:
“Cable stay systems that are employed on relatively short towers and stiff
girder systems and at relatively flat horizontal angles represent a subset of
cable-stays subject to more limited demands than for more traditional configu-
rations. This subset of cable-stayed bridge is generally termed an "extradosed"
bridge. For the purposes of design criteria, the primary distinction is that these
stays do not experience appreciable stress range due to live load, wind load, or
bending effects at the anchorages from either primary effects, or from secondary
bending associated with bridge displacements. In this case of limited stress
range, the bending reserve in the strength limit state may be utilized throughout
the service range. This allows design based on ϕ = 0 .75 alone.”
Under the section 5.10 design provisions this 5th edition recommends that where
fvs is less than 2.5% of the minimum ultimate tensile strength of the main tension
element, for all stays in a bridge, stays may be sized based on Strength B alone
with the requirements of Strength A waived. fvs is the maximum stress range in a stay
due to all service load effects, including but not limited to the static and dynamic
stresses due to traffic and wind loads. This provision essentially allowed design to an
equivalent allowable stay stress of 0.6 f’s for the very specific class of bridges where the
fatigue stress range is less than 2.5%. While this went part way in recognizing
extradosed bridges, it allowed no flexibility on intermediate conditions where the
125
fatigue stress is more than 2.5% but less than a typical cable-stayed bridge. Many
bridges that have been termed as extradosed prestressed bridges fall outside these stress
limits and would not be considered as an extradosed bridge under the 5 th edition
specification.
The PTI committee that is responsible for this document has a 6th edition of the
specification that is under development (PTI, 6th Ed.). This edition proposes to remove
the specific references to extradosed bridges in the 5th edition, and to include
provisions that address bridges with relatively low live load demands on the stay cables
in a more general manner. This is proposed to be accomplished by allowing a
transition in the stay capacity for low demand cables, expressing this as a function of
the total live load plus wind stress to maximum ultimate tensile strength ratio (Total
LL+W/MUTS) for the cable. It is proposed to modify the material factor (ϕ) in
Equation 4-2 to recognize the lower live load fatigue demand on bridges that have
relatively small live load demand on the cables. For the total LL+W/MUTS ratio over
7.5% the material factor is 0.65 as for a normal cable stayed bridge. For a Total
LL+W/MUTS ratio of 1.0% a ϕ factor of 0.78 is allowed, essentially allowing a
maximum stay stress of 0.6 f’s. A linear transition is permitted between these two
limits (Figure 4-5).
126
0.8
0.75
Phi Factor
0.7
Phi Axial
0.65
0.6
0.55
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Total LL+wind stress level / MUTS
Figure 4-5: Variable Φ Factor For Total LL+W/MUTS Ratios Less Than 7.5%
(Adapted From Proposed PTI 6th Edition).
The result of this variable ϕ can be illustrated by a simple example. For a low live
load fatigue demand extradosed bridge we would anticipate designing under a service
load condition to an allowable cable stress of 0.6 f’s. That is:
DL+LL 0.6 f’s ………………..……………Eq. 4-3
Based on the proposed PTI 6th edition provisions, the cables would be sized for
strength Group I loading (the load group typically governing the strength design of the
cables) (AASHTO, 2010). Inserting the Group I load factors into Equation 4-2 and using
the ϕ-factor of 0.78, determined from Figure 4-5 for a bridge with a low LL+W/MUTS
ratio (<1%) gives:
127
1.25(DL) + 1.75(LL) 0.78 f’s…….……………….Eq. 4-4
In order to compare equations 4-3 and 4-4, we need to consider a typical ratio of
dead to live load forces in the cables. Experience for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
(Chapter 5) would place this ratio at about 92% dead load and 8% live load. Inserting
these ratios in the left side of equation 4-4, we can compute a blended load factor (x) on
(DL+LL) as follows:
1.25(DL) +1.75(LL) = x(DL+LL)
Inserting the DL and LL ratios:
1.25(.92) + 1.75(.08) = x(1.0)
x = 1.29
Inserting this blended load factor into equation 4-4 gives:
1.29(DL+LL) 0.78 f’s
And dividing through by 1.29 gives:
DL+LL 0.605 f’s
This gives essentially the same result as designing as a service level stress of 0.6
f’s as shown in equation 4-3. The variable ϕ-factor approach serves to provide a simple
means of transitioning the cable design criteria between the typical cable-stayed stress
limit of 0.45 f’s to a stress limit of 0.6 f’s that would represent a low fatigue demand
128
condition. However this approach takes an indirect consideration of the fatigue demand
on the cable. The variable ϕ-factor is based on the total live load plus wind stress on the
cable. While this gives an indication of the fatigue demand on the cable, a more direct
determination of the cable performance should be based on the actual fatigue demand of
the cable (recognizing that the fatigue live loading is different that the strength live
loading in AASHTO). This more rational approach is possible based of recently available
fatigue test data for strand stressed to values intermediate to the common 0.6 f’s and 0.45
f’s limits.
4.5 Extradosed Bridge Design Approach Based On Single Element Acceptance
Criteria
The approach of developing the fatigue design criteria for the stay cable, based on
single element (strand) acceptance criteria forms the basis for the stay design criteria
developed for cable stayed bridges, as illustrated in Figure 4-4. The single element
acceptance for an individual 7-wire strand is based on the S-N curve for that element, and
that curve is a function of the maximum stress on the strand. As noted in the Section 4-2,
for cable-stayed bridges this acceptance criteria is based on an maximum stress in the
strand of 0.45 f’s. This same approach can be applied to extradosed bridges.
For an extradosed bridge, the fatigue demand on the cables is much less that for a
cable stayed bridge, and therefore the maximum stress can be greater than 0.45 f’s. In
fact, many of the existing extradosed bridges in Japan have been designed with maximum
stress of 0.60 f’s, the same typical stress limit used for 7-wire strand in post tensioning
applications. However, this can result in fatigue governing the stay cable design (leading
129
to inefficient use of materials) or the bridge proportioning strictly controlled to limit the
fatigue stress (for example, by limiting tower height). Optimally, the cables for an
extradosed bridge should be sized based on balancing both their fatigue demand and the
maximum stress value by the designer. This requires flexibility in matching the
maximum cable stress and resulting fatigue capacity of the cable to the structural
demand. In order to give the designer maximum control over these conditions, this
requires consideration of fatigue performance of cables stressed to intermediate values,
between 0.45 f’s and 0.60 f’s.
There is limited information available in the literature for S-N curves for the
performance of 7-wire strand at various levels of maximum stress. Information is
available for single element fatigue performance of strand in the literature at maximum
stress of 0.6 f’s (Kasuga, 1994) and 0.45 f’s (PTI, 2007), but not at intermediate levels.
The fatigue limit can be interpolated for a strand with an maximum stress of 0.55
f’s from the values available at maximum stresses of 0.6 f’s and 0.45 f’s. For example,
based on a log-log interpolation the fatigue limit for an individual strand stressed to 0.55
f’s is 24.1 ksi.
The design criteria for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (the first extradosed
bridge in the United States), established a maximum stay force of 0.55 f’s, and the fatigue
limit was used based on an interpolated value of 24.1 ksi, as noted above. At part of the
construction phase for this bridge, single-element fatigue testing of the 7-wire strand was
performed based on a 0.55 f’s maximum stress in order to verify this design criteria
assumption. The results of this test are summarized in Table 4.1 (from Schwager, 2010).
130
Table 4-1: - Single Element Fatigue Test At 0.55 f's Maximum Stress
Fatigue Tests Tensile Test Overall
No. Upper Range Completion Status Pass/ Cycle Ct. Load Pass/
Limit (ksi) Cycles Fail Failure Mode (kips) Fail
1 55% 64.2 100,000 Done Pass _ 60.4 Pass Pass
2 55% 64.2 100,000 Done Pass _ 60.4 Pass Pass
3 55% 24.5 2,000,000 Done Pass _ 61.0 Pass Pass
4 55% 64.2 Free Stopped _ 1,000,000/- 60.8 Pass Pass

Failure
5 55% 64.2 Free Done _ 255,912/FL - - -
Failure
6 55% 64.2 Free Done _ 164,555/FL - - -
Failure
FL Free Length Failure
G Grip Failure
Samples 5 and 6 were intentionally fatigue tested to failure beyond the 100,000 cycle target for
this maximum stress range.
Figure 4-6: S-N Curve For Single Element 7-Wire Strand For Various Tested
Maximum Stress Levels
131
These tests confirmed the interpolated data, with the 24.5 ksi stress range at 2
million cycles having good agreement with the interpolated value of 24.1 ksi. These
results are plotted on Figure 4-6 and confirm that an interpolated value for the allowable
stress range based on maximum stress levels between 0.45 f’s and 0.60 f’s are reasonable
for single element acceptance criteria.
Based on this confirmation, the fatigue performance of an individual 7-wire strand
at intermediate stress levels between 0.45 and 0.6 f’s is constructed in Figure 4-7 based
on a polynomial curve fit of the published data for fatigue performance at 0.45 and 0.6 f’s
maximum stress levels, and the results from the testing shown in Table 4-1 for a
maximum stress level of 0.55 f’s.
Figure 4-7: Allowable Fatigue Stress Range As A Function Of Maximum Strand Stress
For 2 Million Cycle Stress Range
132
The values of the single element stress range can then be taken from Figure 4-7,
then reduced by 10 ksi for quality assurance considerations (Δ1 correction) and 4.93 ksi
for length effects (Δ2 correction) to obtain the allowable fatigue range based on variable
maximum stress levels. This approach provides a more direct determination of the
combination of fatigue performance and maximum stress level for cables
For example, a cable stressed to 0.56 f’s has single-element allowable fatigue
stress range at 2 million cycles of 23.5 ksi from Figure 4-7. This is reduced by 10 ksi for
quality assurance and 4.93 ksi for an allowable stress range of 9.6 ksi for the cable
element. Similar curves can be prepared for other number of cycles of stress range.
In order to put this approach in the LRFD format used by the current design
codes, Figure 4-7 is modified to provide a calibrated ϕ-factor, based on the allowable
stress range. The LRFD Load Group I expression is shown in Eq. 4-5. The ϕ-factor
must be calibrated such that the targeted allowable stress limit of 0.45 f’s is achieved for
cable stayed bridges and allowable stress target of 0.60 f’s is achieved for extradosed
bridges with low fatigue demand. This requires consideration of the dead load to live load
ratio for these two classes of bridges.
1.25(DL) + 1.75(LL) ϕ f’s………………………….Eq. 4-5
For cable stayed bridges we must consider the class of bridges with a high live
load to dead load ratio, in order to be conservative (meaning bridge with relatively light
superstructures). An example of such bridges is the Fred Hartman Bridge in Baytown
Texas (Stroh, 1990). This bridge had a relatively light composite steel superstructure,
133
with about 38% of the weight attributed to live load and 62% to dead loads. Using these
ratios in Eq. 4-5 and with a target allowable stress (under service conditions) of 0.45 f’s,
we can calculate a ϕ-factor of 0.65. This agrees with Figure 4-5 (from PTI).
For extradosed bridges with a low fatigue demand, we need to consider a higher
dead load proportion. As noted in section 4-4, a representative distribution of loads for an
extradosed bridge is about 8% live loads and 92% dead loads. Using these ratios in Eq. 4-
5 and with a target allowable stress (under service conditions) of 0.60 f’s, we can
calculate a ϕ-factor of 0.78 Again, this agrees with Figure 4-5 (from PTI).
Figure 4-8: Allowable Fatigue Stress Range As A Function Of Φ Factor For 2 Million Cycle
Stress Range
Therefore, rather than selecting a ϕ-factor based on the live load plus wind ratio
as shown in Figure 4-5, Figure 4-8 allows a direct relation between the ϕ-factor and the
allowable stress range for fatigue. The designer can either select a target ϕ-factor, then
134
check the fatigue design against the allowable range from Figure 4-8, or they can begin
with the required fatigue range and then select the appropriate ϕ-factor for strength
design.
4.6 Cable-Stayed Bridge Fatigue Testing
The acceptance and testing of the fatigue performance of stay cables is required to
be demonstrated on a project-by-project basis in accordance with the PTI specifications
(PTI, 5th Ed.). This is both a quality control measure, and to also recognize that the
fatigue performance of the cable is dependent on the specific anchorage hardware, the
specific manufacturer, size of cable and installation procedures and these can vary form
project-to-project. The PTI specification are written for cable-stayed bridge cables,
meaning that the stress conditions specified for acceptance testing are appropriate for
cable stayed bridge fatigue demands.
The current PTI specification requires quality control testing at two levels: for the
individual tensile element (the strand) and for quality control testing for the assembled
cable. For the individual tensile element the PTI specification requires one test for every
2.75 tons or portion thereof shall be made for the following:
Minimum specified ultimate tensile stress
Minimum yield stress
Elastic Modulus
Ductility
Fatigue and static strength
135
For the fatigue test, the wires are required to be tested at an upper stress of 0.45
f’s and a stress range, as shown in Table 4-2 for the selected number of test cycles. At
least 5% of the wire tests shall be to 2 million cycles. A static test to failure shall be
conducted after each wire fatigue test. Wire specimens are required to provide not less
than 0.95 MUTS (MUTS = f’s x nominal area of steel) in the static test.
When choosing the fatigue stress range for the quality control tests, the PTI
Specification allows the values from Table 4-2 to be plotted on a log-log plot and straight
line interpolation between points on such a plot may be used to select stress range values
and the corresponding required number of load cycles for accelerated testing.
Table 4-2: Summary Of Stress Ranges For Single Element Fatigue Tests (From PTI,
5th Ed.)
Number of Cycles Fatigue Stress Range (ksi)
Greater than 2 million 30.9
2,000,000 33.1
500,000 43.8
100,000 64.2
For the assembled cable, the PTI specification requires that tests of at least three
representative stay cable specimens be carried out. The stay cables are to be tested with
all load bearing appurtenances. The three stay cable test specimens should represent the
largest, the smallest, and the average sizes of all the bridge cables, based on the area of the
main tension element (MTE).
The stay cable specimens are tested for 2 million cycles for an upper stress of 0.45
f’s and a stress range of 23.1 ksi (this corresponds to the cable criteria test limit on Figure
4-4). During fatigue testing, not more than 2% of the number of individual wires (rounded
to the nearest whole number) may fail and no failure shall occur in the anchorage.
136
It is recommended in PTI that stay cable specimens be tested at the stress ranges
specified in this section even when the stress range values in the cable stays due to truck
loading are lower. This is to ensure that all cable systems have uniform and high levels of
quality and reliability. Fatigue stresses calculated by designers may not include all the
actions and conditions present in the real structure. This may result in higher fatigue stress
ranges and/or number of cycles than calculated. Also, the lengths of test cables are far
shorter than the bridge cables. Short-length cables will have a smaller probability of fatigue
failure than long cables (due to smaller angular displacements due to catenary
displacement effects). The duration of testing is also very short compared to the design life
of the cable-stayed bridge. Therefore, the effects of time and service environment (such as
corrosion) on fatigue are not considered. Finally, the quality of workmanship and materials
during installation of test cables in the laboratory is likely better than that achieved in the
field. Therefore, the fatigue testing requirements serve as both a quality control and
performance standard for the proprietary anchorage design offered by the supplier.
After fatigue loading, the test specimen are required to be reloaded and are
required to develop a minimum tensile force equal to 92% of the actual ultimate tensile
strength of the cable or 95% of the minimum ultimate tensile strength of the cable,
whichever is greater. The actual ultimate tensile strength of the test cable is calculated
based on results of tensile tests on the individual wires, strands, or bars. Any failure of
anchorage components during the static test is considered cause for rejection of the test.
PTI recognized the significant costs of these tests, and allows the use of acceptance
tests of stay cable specimens from previous projects when those tests were conducted on
specimens similar in design and details to those proposed for a new project.
137
4.7 Considerations For Extradosed Bridge Cable Fatigue Testing – Individual
Tensile Element Test
The draft 6th edition of the PTI specifications (PTI, 6 th Ed.) is intended to
accommodate cable supported bridges that have lower live load plus wind ratio, including
the variable ϕ-factor provisions for low fatigue demand applications that meet our
definition of an extradosed bridge. For the individual tensile element requirements, the
draft 6th edition notes that maximum strand stress up 0.6 f’s in service is already be
allowed by the specification and additional testing is not required for the higher
maximum stress conditions prevalent for low-fatigue range applications. The
commentary provides further support to this position as follows:
“When choosing the fatigue stress range for the quality control tests,
the [target stress range] values may be plotted on a log-log plot and
straight line interpolation between points on such a plot may be used
to select stress range values and the corresponding required number
of load cycles for accelerated testing…
The variable phi factor provisions for low fatigue demand

applications may allow up to a 0.6 f’s upper stress range in service.
For strand meeting the material performance requirements of this
section, the variation in fatigue strength represented by the normal
Wohler curve also addresses the material requirements for the low
fatigue range case. As a result, additional testing is not required for
the low fatigue demand case.”
What is not recognized in the specification or commentary is that the Wohler
curve (or SN curve) is a function of the maximum strand stress, as shown on Figure 4-6.
There are actually a “family” of Wohler curves that represent the fatigue performance of
an individual strand that is stressed to different maximum stress limits. The implication
in the specification is that the relative position of the family of curves is a constant. In
other words, as long as you verify the fatigue performance of one curve of the family (for
138
a given material sample), then the entire family of curves with different maximum stress
limits is also verified.
The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was designed under an earlier version of the
PTI specifications that did not include provisions for extradosed bridges, and project-
specific specifications required the individual strand be tested stress limits corresponding
to the design stress limits for that project (as opposed to testing based on testing along the
Wohler curve for a maximum stress limit of 0.45 f’s). Specifically, the strand was tested
at an upper stress limit of 0.55 f’s with a stress range of 64.2 ksi for 100,000 cycles and a
stress range of 24.5 ksi for 2 million cycles. These conditions represented the expected
performance of the strand at a 0.55 f’s stress limit, based on the projected relative
position of the family of S-N curves, based on interpolated data from tests at 0.45 f’s and
0.6 f’s. This comparison was discussed in Section 4.5, and confirmed the interpolated
results.
It is the author’s opinion, based on the verification testing from the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge project that it is a reasonable position to not require additional
individual tensile element fatigue testing that is conducted at the design maximum stress
limit. Strand verification testing conducted at any of the maximum stress levels (ranging
from 0.45 f’s to 0.6 f’s) should be adequate to establish the performance of the “family”
Wohler curves representing a strand sample stressed to different maximum stress limits.
The provisions of the draft PTI 6th Ed. are considered adequate for the low fatigue
demand case extradosed bridge fatigue requirements.
139
4.8 Extradosed Bridge Cable Fatigue Testing – Assembled Cable Test
As previously noted, the design of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge represents
the first extradosed bridge constructed in the United States and the cable fatigue
requirements were prepared based on a project-specific specification. The testing for the
assembled cable were based on testing two fully assembled stay cable specimens of the
specified 48 – 0.6” strand cable size in the bridge (all cables were the same size in the
bridge). The fatigue testing was conducted for two million cycles at an upper stress limit
of 0.55 f’s and for a stress range of 14.1 ksi. This stress range corresponds to the test
criteria limit as shown on Figure 4-7 (meaning the single element stress range limit
reduces by the Δ1 Quality factor of 10 ksi). During the fatigue test, it was required that
not more than two percent of the number of individual wires may fail (rounded to nearest
whole number),and no failure may occur in the anchorage. After the fatigue test, one
specimen was reloaded and required to develop a minimum tensile force equal to 92% of
the actual ultimate strength and 95% of the minimum ultimate strength of the stay cable,
with the actual ultimate strength determined from testing for individual strands used on
the project. Leak testing was also required to confirm the stay cable corrosion protection
system; however this is not discussed in detail here.
The testing for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was conducted by the CTL
Group in Skokie, Illinois in the summer of 2010 (ref. CTL Group, 2010). The cable test
set-up is shown in Figure 4-9.
140
Figure 4-9: Stay Cable Test Setup For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Photo Courtesy
Connecticut DOT)
Table 4-3 summarizes the results of the cable testing. No wire breaks were
detected for either specimen during the 2 million cycles of fatigue testing. There were no
visible cracks or damage found in the anchorage components or in the free length of the
cable after fatigue testing. The results were that the both stay cable specimens passed the
required tests. Specimen 2 was subjected to ultimate tensile testing after the fatigue test.
141
The cable was loaded to 95.1% of the minimum ultimate tensile strength without any
wire breaks. At this point the loading was terminated, since the test criteria was met.
Upon disassembly of the cable after the tests, there were no wire breaks found and no
cracks or damage to the anchorage components. There was cracking of the wedge
assemblies anchoring the strand, however this was not criteria for failure in the test (this
is consistent with PTI recommendations (PTI,2007).
Table 4-3: Test Results For Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Cable Testing (From CTL, 2010)
Item Unit Specimen 1 Specimen 2
Nominal Diameter of Strand Inch 0.6 0.6
Number of Strands Each 48 48
Cable Nominal Breaking Load (MUTS) Kips 2812.8 2812.8
Fatigue Test Upper Limit (%MUTS) - 55% 55%
Fatigue Test Upper Limit Kips 1547 1547
Fatigue Stress Range ksi 14.07 14.07
Number of Cycles - 2,000,000 2,000,000
Limit criteria for wire breaks Each 7 7
Fatigue Test Start Date - June 11, 2010 July 27, 2010
Fatigue Test Finish Date - July 1, 2010 Aug 24, 2010
Actual Wire Breaks in Fatigue Test Each 0 0
Fatigue Test Pass/Fail - Pass Pass
Cable load at 92% tested ultimate strength Kips - 2670.2
Cable load at 95% MUTS Kips - 2672.2
Load Required in Tensile Test Kips - 2672.2
Load Reached in Tensile Test Kips - 2674.9
Load Reached in Tensile test (%MUTS) - - 95.1%
Displacement at Maximum Load - - 2.7%
Tensile Test Pass/Fail - - Pass
After the design was completed for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge draft PTI
specifications were prepared (PTI, 6th ed.) that address low fatigue and extradosed bridge
conditions. The requirements for fatigue testing for the assembled cable retains the
requirement for tests of at least 3 representative stay cable specimens representing the
largest, the smallest, and the average sizes (areas of MTE) of all the bridge cables. It
142
requires that 2 of the 3 stay cable specimens shall be tested for 2 million cycles for an
upper stress of 0.45 f’s and a stress range of 23.1 ksi, similar to the previous versions of
the specification. However for the third cable specimen, the provisions were revised to
require that testing be made for 2 million cycles at an upper stress of 0.60 f’s and a stress
range of 6.5% f’s for strand or bars (for grade 270 strand this gives a range of 17.55 ksi).
As with previous specifications, the requirements can be demonstrated by testing
for each project, or by acceptance of previous tests under the same conditions. It has
always been the intent of PTI to allow an inventory of previous tests to be accumulated so
that new testing does not have to be done for each project. The proposed PTI 6th ed.
changes are intended to allow a pre-qualification of the cabled in include both the low
and high fatigue stress range conditions, by demonstrating fatigue performance with
bracketed maximum stress conditions.
Based on results of additional testing for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge and
based on the author’s independent evaluations, a few of observations and
recommendations can be offered.
First, the specification as written requires testing of at least 3 representative stay
cable specimens representing the largest, the smallest, and the average sizes (areas of
MTE) of all the bridge cables. For extradosed bridge applications, it is common that all
cables are the same size. Given the requirement that 2 of the 3 tests be conducted at 2
million cycle and an upper stress limit of 0.45 it would be reasonable to only require two
tests when a single cable size is used for the entire project. This was the approach for the
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge. However, the author would recommend that both of
these specimens be tested for ultimate tensile strength as well as fatigue testing. For the
143
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, only one of the specimens was tested for ultimate tensile
strength, because it was felt that the leak test for the corrosion protection system should
be done on a specimen that was not subjected to the ultimate tensile strength. As it
turned out, for the Pearl Harbor memorial Bridge the first leak test failed, and a second
leak test was performed on the 2nd specimen after ultimate tensile testing and passed. It is
recognized that performing the leak test on a specimen that has been subjected to ultimate
tensile testing is a more severe criteria, it is also recognized how critical the leak test it to
the long term performance of the structure and performing this test on a sample that has
been subjected to ultimate tensile testing places a somewhat higher level of
conservativeness on this test, and is not considered detrimental.
Second, Section 4.5 developed an extradosed bridge stay criteria based on single
element performance at various maximum stress limits in the strand. Figure 4-7 shows
the results of this development. Based on the PTI philosophy for cable stayed bridges of
reducing the single element performance by a 10 ksi allowance to address quality
assurance issues (Δ1), Figure 4-7 (based on data from Kasuga) would indicate an
appropriate fatigue test range of about 9.0 ksi, rather than 17.55 ksi, for strand with a
maximum stress level of 0.6 f’s. Figure 4-3 shows the single element S-N curves for
seven wire strand at 0.6 f’s. The 17.55 ksi stress range from PTI represents the cable test
criteria. To relate this back to a single element value, we need to add back in the 10 ksi
quality adjustment giving a single element stress range of 27.55 ksi. Figure 4-10 shows
this value plotted with the data from Figure 4-3. The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
tested the single element strand at 24.5 ksi and passed. The target 27.55 ksi fatigue range
limit for testing indicated by PTI would appear that it is at the upper limit of what might
144
be expected for single element fatigue performance, and may not be achievable. Until
more information is available, the author would recommend reducing this value. As
previously noted the data from Kasuga has been used on several extradosed bridges and
is probably the best information currently available. This would indicate a target fatigue
stress range of 9.0 ksi, rather than 17.55 ksi.
Figure 4-10: Single Element Seven-Wire Strand S-N Curves At 0.6 f’s
And finally, PTI has taken the approach of integrating the low fatigue/extradosed
cable testing requirements with the cable-stayed bridge testing so that the same tests will
qualify either system. This is a desirable goal, as it maximizes the use of prior testing to
fulfill future project testing requirements. The cable system used for the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge is the same cable system details that are have been used for cable-
145
stayed bridge applications. This system was tested at a higher 0.55 f’s maximum stress
level and passed both the fatigue and tensile strength tests. It is likely that even at a 0.6
f’s maximum stress level the stay system will perform acceptably, or if not, only minor
changes will be needed to assure adequate performance at both a 0.45 f’s maximum stress
level and a 0.6” maximum stress level. The author agrees that this single combined test
approach has merit, and would encourage its adoption.
4.9 Stay Anchorages
The anchorages for stay cables are addressed in the PTI specifications (PTI,
2007). They are fundamentally different that the anchorages for simple post-tensioning
tendons in that they must accommodate the fatigue demands of cable stayed bridges,
special corrosion protection requirements and relatively large number of strands. The
anchorage design is considered to be part of the stay suppliers system and governed by
performance criteria that assure adequate tensile capacity, fatigue performance, corrosion
protection and water tightness. These performance criteria are verified by testing for each
specific project. Anchorage designs are considered proprietary systems that are unique to
each cable supplier.
Anchorages for extradosed bridges likewise must accommodate demands beyond
that attributed to simple post tensioning anchorages, and typically the same types of
anchorages used for cable stayed bridges are used for extradosed bridges. Even though
the fatigue demand is less for extradosed bridges, separate anchorage designs have not
been developed by suppliers. With the imposed testing requirements by the draft PTI 6 th
edition of the specifications (PTI, 2010) as discussed in section 4.8, the testing for cable
146
stayed bridge cables and extradosed bridge cables are proposed to use a common testing
requirement, and therefore the same anchorages will likely be employed.
4.10 Saddles
Cable saddles are devices used to allow the cable to be continuous over the top of
the tower, meaning that there is no anchorage of the individual stays on each side of the
tower. This requires that stressing of the cable requires simultaneous and coordinated
jacking of the cable at both ends (at the deck stay anchorage points on each side of the
pylon), It requires special considerations for a non-interrupted corrosion protection
system for the stay cables, it requires fatigue consideration for the curved cable passing
over the saddle, but also has the substantial advantage of eliminating two costly
anchorages for each cable. Saddles are frequently used on cable stayed bridge
worldwide, but have seen limited application in the United States. Federal Highway
Administration has expressed several concerns on the use of saddles for cable-stayed
bridges, including:
Design details are critical to assure appropriate fatigue behavior.
Inability to use grease or wax encased corrosion systems for the cables due to
slipping issues at the saddle
The closer stay spacing allowed at the tops of towers by the use of saddles can
inhibit access by stay cable inspection equipment.
Less control on deck erection geometry than with individually anchored cables.
Although saddles have apparent material cost saving, the true savings are small
when all erection costs and other factors are considered.
147
For these reasons, FHWA has a Technical Advisory that recommends that all
stays should terminate at the pylon in appropriate anchorages and that saddles should not
be used for cable-stayed bridges (Lwin, 1994). These recommendations apply to bridges
whose funding includes federal dollars. Saddles continue to be used for some cable
stayed bridge funded from other sources.
Designers have differing opinions on use of saddles versus separate anchorages in
the two faces of the tower, with strong advocates for both solutions. The PTI
specifications (PTI, 2007) include design recommendations for saddles and continue
consider saddles a viable design detail.
Extradosed bridges have lower fatigue demands, flatter cable angles meaning less
curvature demand over the towers, and stiffer decks and hence less geometry control
issues. These factors favor the use of saddles for extradosed bridges. In fact, most of the
extradosed bridges constructed in Japan use saddles with continuous cables over the
towers. The saddles allow a more compact cable arrangement at the tops of towers, which
has aesthetic advantages. In Japan they have pioneered prefabricated saddle systems that
have large resistance to differences in cable tension between the two sides of the tower.
These differences can be due to unbalanced service load conditions or due to erection
conditions (Sumitomo, 1998).
The first extradosed bridge in the United States was partially funded with Federal
monies, and the recommendation against saddles was imposed. However it is the author’s
opinion that extradosed bridge should not be included under Federal Highways objections
to saddles, and that saddles should be considered for future extradosed bridges in the
United States.
148
4.11 Stay Corrosion Protection
The corrosion protection of the stay cables has long been recognized by designers
and a key requirement for successful cable supported bridges (Saul, 1990). The cables
are a primary structural component of the bridge, and must be either designed for the
same service life as the bridge, or designed for replacement. The corrosion protection of
stay cables is addressed in the PTI specifications (PTI, 2007). These specifications
require two nested and independent corrosion barriers for the main tension element to be
provided in both the free length and anchorage regions of the cables. The PTI
specification is a performance specification, with project specific testing requirements to
assure that the specification is met.
Examples of common corrosion protection systems for seven-wire strand cable
systems include:
Layer 1: Grease (or wax) filled PE sheath on each individual strand, and
Layer 2: Outer PE sheath encasing all strands.
Layer 1: Epoxy coating of individual strand, and

Layer 1: Galvanized Strand

The PTI requirements also require that cable stayed bridges be for the replacement
of any individual cable with a reduction of the live load in the area of the cable under exchange.
They also must be designed for loss of any one cable without the occurrence of structural
instability. The cable loss must include impact dynamic force resulting from the sudden rupture
of a cable of 2.0 times the static force in the cable, or the force as determined by non-linear
dynamic analysis of a sudden cable rupture.
149
The corrosion protection for extradosed bridges is considered essentially the same
as for cable stayed bridges, and should require the same specifications and design criteria
for the corrosion protection of the cables, and the same cable replacement/cable loss
design criteria.
4.12 Cable Dynamics/Vibration Issues/Damping
Cable vibrations can potentially be excited by a variety of dynamic wind forces
acting on the cable. Such forces are caused by turbulence in the on-coming air flow
(buffeting), vortex shedding in the wake behind the cable, self-induction (galloping), fluid-
elastic interaction between neighboring cables (wake galloping), or by interaction between
rain, wind and cable. Cable vibrations can also arise from forced vibrations that are
caused by dynamic forces acting on other parts of the structure, such as the deck,
tower under traffic induced loads.
The PTI Specifications (PTI, 20017) address stays cable vibrations design
requirements for cable stayed bridges. These include requirements for evaluation of
potential aerodynamic excitations, recommendation on wind tunnel or other physical
testing where appropriate and recommendation for countermeasures to suppress cable
motions.
These countermeasures can include provision of cable damping which can
include the placement of damping material in the ring space between cable and steel exit
pipes of pylon and deck anchorages is recommended, or by supplemental mechanical
damping devices attached to the deck. They can also include the use of stabilizing cables
150
that connect the main cables with transverse elements such adjacent cables or at the deck
(tie-down cables).
The design of extradosed bridges faces similar challenges and cable stayed bridges
for cable vibrations, although to a lesser degree due to the shorter cables and flatter cable
angles. In Japan, the use of high-damping rubber inserts between the cable and the steel
exit pipes at the deck or the tower have proven to be a simple and economical solution to
these vibration issues (Kasuga, 1995). However some of these damping elements are
proprietary items and are not widely available in the United States.
4.13 Summary
The design of the stay cables represents a key differentiator between cable-stayed
and extradosed bridges. The cables for extradosed bridges experience lower fatigue
demand, and consequently can be stressed to a higher tensile limit than cables of cable-
stayed bridges. This chapter provides several suggested improvements to current design
practice and specifications related to the design of the stay cables:
Recommendations are provided for single element fatigue performance for seven-
wire strand as a function of the maximum strand tensile stress are provided (Figure
4-6).
An alternate procedure for fatigue design of the stay-cable of extradosed bridge
based on single element fatigue performance is provided, both in an allowable
stress format and an LRFD format (Figures 4-7 and 4-8).
Proposed PTI requirements for single element testing are confirmed. (Section 4.7)
151
Modifications to proposed PTI requirements for stay cable testing are
recommended (Section 4.8)
Stay anchorage details similar to cable-stayed bridge are proposed (Section 4.9)
It is recommended that the FHWA moratorium on the use of saddles for cable-
stayed bridge be lifted for extradosed bridges (section 4.10)
Stay corrosion protection details similar to cable stayed bridges are recommended
(Section 4.11)
Stay damping requirements for extradosed bridges are compared with the
requirements for cable-stayed bridges (Section 4.12)
152
Chapter 5: Prototype Design
5.1. Introduction/ Goals
In this chapter the design of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New Haven
Connecticut is outlined. This bridge is the first extradosed prestressed bridge designed in
the United States, and as such provides a test bed for the adaption of the extradosed
bridge concept to the United States. This includes the adaptation of design codes and
standards, the definition of new design criteria where none previously existed for this
bridge type, the implementation of appropriate testing requirements, as well as design of
the first extradosed bridge to U.S. loading, codes and standards.
The previous chapters have reviewed the state of practice for extradosed bridges
worldwide, and have discussed in detail some of the important design parameters and
features of extradosed bridges. However, the real proof of a design concept is its
application of these design parameters to an actual prototype bridge…in the real world.
To that end the author has had the opportunity to serve as the lead designer and engineer
of record for the design of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge. This prototype bridge
concept was finalized in 2001 and design of this bridge was performed from 2002
through 2004. The bridge was initially bid for construction in 2006, but a contract was
not awarded due to the poor economic conditions for bidding at that time. After making
a few design revisions, the project was re-bid in 2009 and was awarded for construction.
Construction is progressing on schedule with completion of the first of the twin span
expected in mid-2012, and completion of the second bridge in 2015.
153
The incorporation of the prototype design into this dissertation has expanded the
time-frame for the work to more than a decade. Large bridge projects represent
substantial investment of public funds, and it is not unusual for their development from
concept to completed facility to span a decade or more. That means the introduction of a
new bridge concept can require a decade or more to be introduced. It is considered
important to the treatment of the subject of extradosed bridges to address not only the
theoretical aspects of the bridge concept but to also address the application of the concept
to a real-world design. The author has been in the position to parallel this dissertation on
extradosed bridges with the design development of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge,
and in doing so brings a unique perspective to the subject of extradosed bridges. The goal
of this chapter is use the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Design to:
Describe the prototype and the thought process leading to selection of the
extradosed bridge type
Apply to the prototype design the design parameters, characteristics and features
of extradosed bridge design that were discussed in the previous chapters
Review the stay cable design based on an allowable stress design and single
element acceptance criteria
Apply the LRFD stay design criteria proposed in the draft PTI 6th edition
specification to the prototype design
Apply the authors’ proposed LRFD stay design criteria based on single element
acceptance criteria to the prototype design
Discuss the aerodynamic behavior and aerodynamic design of the prototype
154
Outline the recommended physical testing program performed during design and
construction of the prototype.
5.2. Concept Development And Prototype Description
As part of the Connecticut Turnpike, a crossing of the Quinnipiac River in New
Haven Connecticut was opened to traffic in 1958. This bridge is located at the
confluence of the Quinnipiac and Mill Rivers and was known locally as the “Q-Bridge”.
It is a steel plate girder bridge that has a 387 foot main span that was the longest plate-
girder span in North America at the time of completion. This bridge was eventually
integrated as part of I-95, serving the northeast corridor between New York City and
Boston (Figure 5-1). The Q-Bridge was designated by the Connecticut legislature a
Memorial Bridge and renamed the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in 1995, to
commemorate the heroes of Pearl Harbor.
Figure 5-1: Existing I-95 Bridge Over Quinnipiac River, New Haven, CT. (Photo By
Author)
The existing I-95 Bridge presently carries in over of 160,000 vehicles per day,
well in excess of the 40,000 vehicles it was designed for. At an age of over 50 years, it is
155
at the end of its service life and is classified as both structurally and functionally
deficient.
The I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing (NHHC) Corridor Improvement Program
is one of Connecticut’s largest multi-modal transportation improvement initiatives. The
$2.2 billion program includes operational, safety and capacity improvements to 7.25
miles of I-95, a new signature bridge over the Quinnipiac River, a new commuter rail
station, reconstruction of the I-91/I-95/Route 34 Interchange, and other numerous
transportation system management (TSM) components. The centerpiece of the Program
is the new bridge crossing the Quinnipiac River.
The Quinnipiac River crossing has a number of physical constraints. Some of the
more important of these include:
Limitations of the profile grade of the bridge in order to meet adjacent
interchange profiles
Limitations on tower heights due to clearances from a nearby Tweed Airport
Requirement to provide 10 lanes of through traffic plus full shoulders plus a
tapering ramp lane across the structure.
Limitation of horizontal alignment to place the new bridge in between an adjacent
lift bridge (Tomlinson Bridge) and adjacent high tension power lines.
A desire to provide a longer span, since the west pier of the existing bridge had
been struck several times by barges.
A desire to avoid the same locations as the existing piers, due to interference
concerns with the existing foundations
156
A desire to minimize in-water impacts for environmental reasons, in particular to
avoid sensitive oyster beds.
The need to phase-construct the bridge to maintain at least the existing number of
lanes of traffic. i.e., build one half of the new bridge while maintaining traffic on
the existing bridge. Shift two-way traffic on the one-half new bridge and remove
the existing bridge. Construct second half of new bridge in existing alignment,
then shift traffic to final configuration.
An initial screening process eliminated cable stayed bridge (due to height
restrictions), arch bridges (due to complications with width variations and cost), and
narrowed the viable bridge types to the following:
Composite Steel Plate Girder;
Composite Steel Box Girder;
Cast-in-Place Segmentally Post-Tensioned Concrete Box Girder;
Precast Segmentally Post-Tensioned Concrete Box Girder;
Extradosed Cable Stayed Steel Box Girder;
Extradosed Cable Stayed Concrete Box Girder
A detailed bride type study was prepared to study these alternatives. All of these
alternatives were viable, and each had advantages and disadvantages. In the final
analysis the extradosed bridge alternatives were recommended for the following reasons:
157
The girder bridges were limited in span length to an adequate but less than
desirable span length due to structural depth limitations. The extradosed bridge
could provide longer span lengths that improved navigation clearances, while
avoiding existing piers and still meeting the profile grade requirements (due to
their relatively shallow girder depth).
The longer spans resulted in fewer piers in the River, and lessened environmental
impacts.
The extradosed bridge provided an opportunity to build a landmark bridge worthy
of the designation of as the “Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge”
The estimated construction cost for the extradosed bridge was within 15% of the
least costly girder alternative, which was judged acceptable, given its other
advantages.
Computer images of the extradosed bridge alternative are shown in Figure 5-2 and
5-3. The final recommendation was to prepare two complete designs to be competitively
bid for construction. These two options were a “conventional” concrete extradosed
bridge and a steel composite steel extradosed bridge. The composite steel bridge would
be the first of this bridge type in the world. Its advantage for this site was a simplified
erection method, a lower mass superstructure that translates to reduced seismic demand
on the substructure and potential cost savings. It was also felt that having a steel and
concrete alternative would foster bid competition between the steel and concrete
industries, and yield further savings. So the final design was developed with two
complete competing designs. The owner chose to have the same designer prepare both
158
the concrete and steel-composite designs, in order to assure that the designs were treated
in similar manners and developed on a competitive basis.
Ultimately, the concrete alternative was the successful bridge in the bid
competition and is currently under construction. The details in this chapter will be
focused primarily on the concrete alternative.
Figure 5-2: Computer Image Of The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Image Courtesy Of
URS Corporation)
159
Figure 5-3 Computer Image Of Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Adjacent Tomlinson
Bridge Removed From View For Clarity) (Image Courtesy Of URS Corporation)
The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is a three span continuous cast-in-place
segmental concrete box girder structure with 515 foot main span and 248.8 foot side
spans. A vertical clearance of 60 feet is provided. Modular Expansion joints are provided
at the ends of the three-span continuous unit. The superstructure is supported on pot/disk
bearings at the towers and end piers. The structure is fixed against longitudinal
translation at Tower 3 and free to move at the other locations.
The northbound and southbound roadways are carried on separate parallel
structures, accommodating 5 lanes a tapering auxiliary lane and 10 foot shoulders on a
deck that varies in width from 95.4 feet to 107.6 feet. Each deck is a 5-cell concrete box
girder section. The depth varies through a parabolic haunch from 9.84 feet at midspan to
16.4 feet at the towers. The superstructure box section is post-tensioned both
longitudinally and transversely. Longitudinal tendons are internal to the concrete.
Transverse slab tendons are internal to the concrete. Draped external transverse post
160
tensioning is provided at each stay anchorage. This external tendon is anchored near the
stay and deviates near the bottom of the inner two webs.
The stays are anchored at the edges of the cross section in reinforced edge beams.
The tower legs are spaced slightly outside the superstructure, to allow the deck to pass
through, and the stay cables are therefore slightly inclined outward from the vertical
plane.
The twin decks are supported by a common tower, each comprised of with three
pylons above deck and two additional intermediate columns below deck. The tower legs
are constant cross section, elliptical in shape and hollow in cross-section. The stay cables
are anchored in steel frames erected prior to pouring the tower sections. Foundations are
supported by 8-foot diameter drilled shafts founded on rock.
5.3. Design Parameters, Characteristics And Features
5.3.1 Materials
As discussed in section 3.3, most extradosed prestressed bridges are all-concrete
bridges. The basic premise of extradosed prestressing it to use the cables as external
prestressing to provide both axial compression and a prestress moment with a large
eccentricity of the girder, and a concrete girder is well suited to take advantage of this
beneficial pre-compression since concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension.
However, there have been a few examples of extradosed bridge that have used steel in the
girder, either as an all-steel element over a portion of the span, or a composite girder
cross-section using a steel corrugated web; the advantage being a weight savings, which
has several important consequences. The lower weight of the composite steel or all-steel
161
girder obviously reduces the structural demand, and therefore cost, for the cables, towers
and foundations. But it also reduces the seismic mass, and therefore has additional
reductions of the demands for the towers and foundations.
For the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge the weight of the girder was particularly
important due to the large width of the structure, due to certain limitation on erection
access, and considering the significant seismic accelerations at the site. It was therefore
considered a potential advantage to develop a steel or steel composite alternative for this
bridge. Initially an all-steel orthotropic cross section similar to that used for the Kiso and
Ibi Bridges (Section 2.5) was considered. However the fabrication shops in the United
States are not experienced in this type of construction. Recent orthotropic bridge girders
in the U.S. such as the Carquinez Bridge between Crockett and Vallejo California or the
East Bay Bridge in San Francisco have been fabricated outside the United States. The
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge utilized federal funding for its construction and therefore
must adhere to strict buy-American requirements in the procurement of the major cost
elements of the bridge, i.e., the girders must be fabricated in the United States. It was
therefore considered uneconomical to pursue this bridge type.
As an alternative, a steel composite girder that uses steel girders mated with a
composite concrete deck was developed for this bridge (Figure 5-4). This is a novel
solution for an extradosed bridge, and is believed to represent the first composite steel
design developed for an extradosed bridge in the world.
162
11.5 ft. Steel Edge-Girder
Steel Box-Girders
Varies 95.4 to 107.6 ft.
Figure 5-4: Composite Steel Girder Cross Section
There were several potential advantages for this alternative composite girder
configuration:
Reduced girder weight for savings in cables, tower and foundation quantities
Reduced girder mass for improved seismic performance, and savings in tower and
foundation quantities
Simplified erection method that allowed erection of the entire steel girder without
cables. Then installation and stressing of all cables. Then casting of deck.
A constant depth section could be economically utilized, since the flexural and
shear demands from balanced cantilever construction were not required.
The weight savings between the steel and concrete alternatives was significant. The
concrete alternative superstructure on average weighs 54.2 kips per foot (each deck), and
the steel composite alternative weighs 28.7 kips per foot. Over the 1,013 bridge length
and considering the twin decks this represents a 52 million pound weight savings
between the two alternatives. This is 52 million pounds less the cables, towers and
foundations need to carry.
163
The composite steel alternate compared favorably with a more traditional all-
concrete girder as shown in Figure 5-5. It was decided to prepare two complete designs
for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, one all-concrete girder and one composite-steel
girder, and to bid these two designs competitively and let the marketplace decide which
was more economical. This alternative bidding was also viewed as an opportunity to
foster price competition in the market between the steel and concrete industries.
Varies 11.5’ to 16.4’
Varies 95.4 to 107.6 ft.
Figure 5-5: All-Concrete Girder Cross Section
The project was bid in 2009. Three bids were received; two for concrete alternative
and one for the steel alternative (Ref. State of Connecticut, 2009):

Bid No. 3 (Steel) $519 million
Although the steel alternative was more costly in this bid competition, the
prevalent market conditions for steel raw materials, the competitive labor markets at the
time of bid and a number of other factors can affect individual bid results. In the final
bid, the weight savings for foundations could not be capitalized on for the steel alternate
164
because a last minute decision was made to let the foundations on an advanced contract
that must incorporate either the concrete or steel alternative, and therefore the heavier
concrete foundations were used. However this design demonstrated that a composite
steel alternative is viable for an extradosed bridge, and can be considered for future
applications when weight savings or construction techniques are favorable for the steel
composite design.
For the remainder of this chapter, we will focus the design development of the
concrete alternative that was advanced to construction.
5.3.2 Main Span Length
The main span of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was set at 515 feet in
response to the site requirements, including avoidance of the existing foundation
locations, and providing a sufficiently large main span to improve navigation clearances.
As discussed in Section 3.4, the typical span range for extradosed bridges is in the range
of 300-600 feet. The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge falls well within this limit, and is
therefore expected to provide a viable and economical crossing solution.
5.3.3 Main Span/Side Span Ratio
As discussed in Section 3.5, a desirable main span/side span length ratio for
extradosed bridges is 0.6, with typical extradosed bridges in the range of 0.45 to 0.69.
This ratio for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is 0.48, which is at the low end of the
range. The span length was selected for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge based on
geometric constraints. There is a horizontal curvature on the bridge approaches, and the
165
side span was set to avoid significant encroachment into the horizontal curvature on the
cable supported bridge. Also the roadway continues to taper (widen) on the approaches,
and the side span length was set in order to provide a reasonable design width for the
bridge.
In final design, the consequence of this relatively short side span was that there
was an uplift condition at the anchor piers under certain live load conditions. This uplift
was about 5% of the maximum reaction at the anchor pier, or about 570 kips. A concrete
counterweight was cast inside the box girder to balance this uplift condition and result in
a net positive reaction under all load conditions on the bearings. The use of a
counterweight was considered preferable over a mechanical hold-down device (such as
tie-down cables of a pinned bearing) because the hold down device would require
ongoing future maintenance. There is also an issue of redundancy of hold-down devices,
since their failure could lead to collapse of the bridge. Typically a second, redundant tie
is required, adding a further complication. This all led to the decision to use a
counterweight. There was however a negative consequence of the counterweight in that it
adds mass to the superstructure which increases the seismic demands on the structure.
However in this case the counterweight was not too large and the added mass was judged
acceptable. If the geometric constraints were not present, a longer side span would be
preferable.
It is noted that if the side spans were shortened even more, this uplift condition
would become s significant design issue. Therefore the lower range limit to the side span
ratio is an important design parameter.
166
5.3.4 Applicability To Curved And/Or Tapered Alignment
As discussed in Section 3.7, the designs of bridges are frequently required to
conform to complex roadway alignments. For the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, the first
30 feet of the east side span is on a 1528 foot radius. The remainder of the alignment is
on a tangent. The bridge width tapers over the entire bridge length, with each of the twin-
decks varying linearly in width from 95.4 feet to 107.6 feet over the length of the three-
span bridge. This width variation accommodates entrance/exit ramps over the length of
the bridge. The taper in bridge width for the two bridge decks is symmetrical.
The vertical alignment of the main span and a portion of the side spans of the
bridge is on a 820 foot long parabolic vertical curve. The first 103 feet of each side span
is on a tangent vertical alignment with a 2.7% grade. The two bridge decks are each on a
constant cross slope (superelevation) of 2%, except the first 60 feet of each side span is
on a variable cross slope, linearly transitioning from the 2% slope to a 2.6% cross slope at
the end of the bridge.
The extradosed bridge type excels at the accommodation of these complex
alignment requirements. From a geometric viewpoint, the spatial locations of the cables
do not extend over the entire side span lengths, and therefore do not conflict with the
horizontal curvature at the ends of the side spans. The bridge width and superelevation
transitions are accommodated in the casting of the girder segments. From a structural
viewpoint, the girder is a closed box cross section that has substantial torsional stiffness
that can readily accommodate the eccentricities resultant from the tapered bridge width
and the small curvature on the ends of the side spans.
167
5.3.5 Erection Method
In bridge design, one of the early considerations for the designer is to establish
how the bridge will be built. The erection method, sequence, and weights of erection
equipment need to be considered in the design. Generally, an erection method is chosen
such that the erection conditions do not control the design, or if they do control, they do
so only by a small margin. As with many design situations, the development of the
erection method, sequence and equipment weights can be an iterative process since all of
the structural members will not have been sized until the analysis is completed, and the
analysis is a function of the erection methods.
For the concrete alternative of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, a cast-in-place
construction of the girder using a traveling form system was chosen. The other option
would be to precast the segments at an off-site casting yard, then transport and assembly
the precast segments. This was not chosen because (1) the segment size for this bridge is
very large and precasting of such large and complex segments is unprecedented, (2) the
transportation of such size segments could be challenging, (3) the site access is limited
and erection of the segments would be challenging, and (4) a sufficient quantity of land
for a casting yard with river access was not available within a reasonable distance from
the project site. It was judged that a cast-in-place erection method would be more
economical and practical for this bridge.
168
Pier Table Falsework Stage 1: Construct
towers, anchor
piers from
temporary access
platforms in river.
Construct pier
Access Platforms Form Travelers table from on
ta
flasework
fl
Stage 2: Install
form travelers,
supported on pier
table
Stage 3: Cast
girder segments
using form
traveler in
balanced
cantilever from
towers. Install and
stress stay cables
after casting girder
segment that
anchors the stay.
Stage 4: Continue
balanced cantilever
erection and stay
installation and
stressing until
closure of side
span at anchor pier.
Remove falsework
at tower.
Stage 5: Continue
cantilever
erection of main
span. With one
segment
remaining,
remove one form
traveler and use
remaining
Stage 6: Remove
remaining traveler.
Install barriers,
wearing surface
and finishing
works. Open
bridge to traffic.
Figure 5-6: Bridge Erection Sequence
169
The girder is constructed in a balanced cantilever manner beginning at each
tower, until the anchor piers are met and side span closure is made, and continue
cantilevering in the main span until the two cantilevers meet and closure is made at mid
span. Figure 5.6 shows the schematic erection sequence assumed for design.
Four form travelers were assumed to be used, two per tower, with the cantilevers
off of the two towers progressing simultaneously. Although cost could be saved by using
only two form travelers and constructing the cantilevers at the two towers in sequence,
the project schedule would be extended to what was considered an unacceptable time
frame. Therefore it was elected to use four form travelers in the design. The northbound
roadway is constructed first. Then the existing bridge is removed and the southbound
roadway is constructed with the same erection sequence. The length of the girder
segments that are cast for each segment is 14’-3” (the segment length). This is the same
length as the stay cable spacing, so there is one stay per segment. The maximum weight
of a segment (concrete plus reinforcing and embedded items) is 715,000 pounds.
The erection traveler moves with each casting stage. It is a significant load on the
bridge during construction and must be considered in the design. The assumed layout of
the form traveler is shown in Figure 5-7. A preliminary design is made for the erection
traveler to estimate its weight. The weight of the formwork is estimated to weigh 200,000
pounds and the form traveler supporting the formwork is estimated to weigh 308,000
pounds. So the total estimated weight of the form traveler assembly (forms plus traveler)
is 508,000 pounds.
170
Form Traveler
Girder Form
Segment s
SIDE ELEVATION VIEW
Form Traveler
Girder
Form
Segment
s
FRONT ELEVATION VIEW
Figure 5-7: Assumed Form Traveler For Casting Girder Segments
171
5.3.6 Tower Height
As discussed in Section3.8, the suggested tower/span (H/L) ratio is 1/10, with a
range of 1/7 to 1/13. The tower height selected for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
(measured from deck level to the uppermost cable) is 60 feet. This gives an H/L ratio of
1/8.6. The tower height for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was selected with a
slightly taller tower height than the suggested value, but well within the suggested range
The consequence of this taller tower is that the stay system will be somewhat stiffer, due
to the slightly steeper cable inclination, which will place more demand on the cables
(especially for fatigue). This is discussed in more detail in section 5.4
5.3.7 Deck Depth / Haunch Arrangement
As discussed in section 3.9, most extradosed bridges use a variable depth cross
section. The recommended girder depth/span ration at the tower is in the range of 25-35
and the recommended depth span ratio at midspan is 50.
For the concrete superstructure of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge a variable
depth girder was chosen. The haunched section maximizes the girder capacity for the
cantilever construction prior to installation of the first stay cable, while reducing the
section size to save weight and cost for the lower moment demand sections near mid-
span. A depth 16.4 feet is selected at the towers, which was selected in order to provide
adequate negative moment capacity for the cantilever construction of the girder prior to
installation of the first stay. This gives a depth span ratio of 31.4, in the middle of the
recommended range. At mid-span a depth of 11.5 is selected. This depth was in part
chosen to provide a 6.5 foot internal clear height within the box girder for inspection
172
access purposes. This depth gives a span depth ratio of 45, close to the recommended
range.
5.3.8 Bridge Deck Width And Selection Of The Girder Cross Section
The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge requires a very wide deck. The structure
carries 10 lanes of traffic and four full shoulders. Including the additional width required
for the barriers and the exposed edge girders for the stay cable attachment, this gives an
overall width requirement of 190 feet. The bridge must also accommodate two tapering
lanes across the bridge to provide ramp access, increasing the width to over 215 feet at
the west end.
Referring to section 3.10, the widest examples of extradosed bridges worldwide is
in the range of 112 feet. Clearly, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is well outside this
range. Therefore it was decided to essentially separate the structure into two halves,
carrying the northbound traffic on one bridge and the southbound traffic on a second
bridge. Each of these twin-decks has a width that varies from 95.4 feet to 107.6 feet,
putting each bridge at the upper limit of bridge width for existing extradosed bridges
(Figure 5-8 and 5-9).
The wide, multi cell cross section must address the transverse load transfer
between the girder webs and the stay cables. The vertical loads on the cross section,
including dead loads and traffic live loads are carried in vertical shear in the webs. A
portion of that load must be transferred transversely to the stay cables. One option for this
load transfer is to design the transverse cross-section as a moment frame (or also called a
173
vierendeel truss). This proved uneconomical, and the design forces exceeded joint
capacities without substantial size increases of the members.
Varies 95.4 to 107.6 feet 9.8’ Varies 95.4 to 107.6 feet
Figure 5-8: Twin-Deck Arrangement
9.84’ 9.84’
Shld 5 lanes at 9.84’ + Ramp Lane (Varies) Shld
r. r.
Varies 11.5 to 16.4
1.64’ Typ.
Varies 16.6’ 23’ Varies 16.6’

to 22.6’ to 22.6’
Varies 95.4 to 107.6 feet

ft.
Figure 5-9: Girder Cross Section Details
A second option is to provide a transverse diaphragm at each stay cable location.
While this could work structurally, it adds a lot of unnecessary weight to the system. A
third option (and the one chosen) is shown in Figure 5-10. The load from the exterior
web is transferred to the stay cable using truss action of the box girder flanges (force
balance as shown in blue arrows) stiffened by a triangular diaphragm. The shear in the
interior web is transfers to the stay cable by a transverse post-tensioning cable that is
174
anchored near the stay cable and deviated at the interior web to provide an uplift
component that balances the shear in the interior web. This arrangement provided an
efficient load transfer mechanism for the exceptionally wide cross section.
Stay Cable
Concrete Diaphragm
Post-Tensioning
Exterior Interior
Web Web
Figure 5-10: Method Of Transverse Load Transfer From Girder Webs To Stay Cables
5.3.9 Tower Shape
The basic form of the tower for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is governed by
the demands of the deck arrangement and the cables. The twin decks must be supported
by two planes of cables each, leading naturally to a three leg tower with the center leg
accommodating cables from both decks. Figure 5-11 shows a cross section of the tower
and the relationship to the deck. The stay cables have a slightly outward inclination in
order to accommodate the vertical tower legs and to pass the deck between the tower
legs.
175
The tower legs are hollow elliptical shaped sections of constant cross section to simplify
forming (Figure 5-12). The shape of the tower legs was chosen based aesthetics. In
keeping with the Pearl Harbor Memorial theme, they are intended to suggest the shape of
the stacks on a ship (Figure 5-13). The tower legs are somewhat oversized to provide the
correct visual proportion, which allowed adequate room for anchorage and jacking of the
stay cables in the tower head, and served to minimize any reinforcement congestion in
the tower legs.
A A
Tower Transverse Section Tower

Longitudinal
Section
Figure 5-11: Tower Cross Sections (For Section A-A See Figure 5-12)
176
9.8' 23’
Figure 5-12: Tower Leg Cross Section (Section A-A)
Figure 5-13: Tower View From Roadway (Image Courtesy URS Corporation)
177
5.3.10 Stay Cable Arrangement
The stay cables on extradosed bridges are spaced along the deck in response to the
prestressing demands of the girder, as opposed to cable stayed bridges where the cables
are typically spaced evenly over the length of the spans. For the Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge the stay cable arrangement is shown in Figure 5-14. The 105 foot distance from
the tower to the first cable was set based on the girder capacity in negative moment
during balanced cantilever construction from the tower.
249’ 515’ 249’

44’’ 7 spa. 105’ 105’ 7 spa. 105’ 7 spa. 105’ 105’ 7 spa. 44’
at at at at
14.3’ 14.3’ 14.3’ 14.3’
Figure 5-14: Elevation View Showing Stay Cable Arrangement
The provision of seven stays introduced a positive prestress moment at the tower
that represented the limit of the girder capacity at the tower in positive moment during
cantilever erection. The main span cantilever erection then continued to main span
closure using conventional internal post tensioning.
178
5.3.11 Aesthetics
One of the decision points for the choice of an extradosed bridge for the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge was opportunities for visual expression that this bridge type
offered. Large bridge projects provide a necessary transportation utility role, but they
also represent a large expenditure of public funds and warrant care and attention to visual
detail in their execution. Major bridges often become part of the identity for
communities, and a source of local pride.
This bridge was planned to carry on the identity of the existing I-95 bridge as a
memorial bridge. As such, there was a focus on developing a design that had “memorial
quality”. What this meant to the designers was a bridge that has a simple and clean
structural form, devoid of unnecessary or elaborate ornamentation. The goal was to
provide some subtle visual queues to Pearl Harbor in the design and details of the bridge.
As mentioned previously, the detailing of the towers a s simple oval shapes was
intended to suggest stacks on a ship. To accentuate the tower shape, and to tie it into the
footing and cross-beams, “V-groves” were cast in the concrete at construction joint lines
to accentuate the visual impression one might from a ship fabricated from sections of
steel plate (Figure 5-15).
To mark the arrival on the bridge, the anchor piers were extended above deck
level and are inlayed in gold leaf with the words “Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge” and
“December 7, 1941” as a reminder to the attack on Pearl Harbor (Figure 5-16).
179
Figure 5-15: Sketch Of Visual Form Of Piers And Towers (Courtesy Of Connecticut
DOT)
Figure 5-16: Entry Markers At The Beginning Of The Bridge (Images Courtesy Of URS
Corporation)
180
It is also desirable to consider the appearance of the bridge at night. Aesthetic
lighting is provided for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge to reinforce the memorial
quality of the bridge. Subdued white lighting washes the tower and anchor pier surfaces
and “port-hole” lights are illuminated along the deck. On special days, such as December
7th and 4th of July, brilliant light cannons are illuminated from the central towers, shining
towards the heavens (Figure 5-17).
Figure 5-17: Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Aesthetic Lighting. (Image Courtesy Of
URS Corporation)
5.4. Stay Cable Design (Using Single-Element Strand Criteria)
There are presently no code criteria in the United States for the design of the stay
cables for extradosed bridges. As discussed in Section 4.5, a project specific criteria can
be established based of similar philosophy as the PTI criteria for stay cable bridges (PTI,
2007), based on single-element acceptance criteria. However, instead of limiting the
maximum stress in the strand to 0.45 f’s as for cable-stayed bridges, a higher value can be
used for extradosed bridges because they have a lower fatigue demand that cable-stayed
181
bridges. The load demands on the stay cables are calculated based on AASHTO loading
criteria (AASHTO, 2010) and based on a three-dimensional, time-dependent finite
element structural model of the bridge. The software utilized for this analysis is RM2000,
a software package specifically tailored to complex bridge analysis.
Figure 5-18: RM2000 Computer Model Of Bridge
The analysis approach modeled the structure in three-dimensions using beam
elements (Figure 5-18). A spine element was used for the girder that is modeled to
represent the bending stiffness of the girder about the two principal axes and the torsional
stiffness. The cables are modeled in their correct spatial position, and then attached to
the girder spine using rigid links. The bridge is constructed in the model following the
general erection sequence shown in Section 5.3, including the locked-in stress effects of
placement and removal erection equipment loads and erection sequence effects. Figure
5-19 shows eight of the detailed erection steps that accomplish the installation of one
182
183
Figure 5-19: Detailed Computer Sequencing Of The Erection Stages
183
pair of segments and activation of its stay cable each side of the tower. The analysis is a
time dependent analysis that also considers the locked-in effects of creep and shrinkage
deformations on the member deformations and stresses. The structure is modeled on a
time scale from beginning of erection to opening to traffic plus 10 years, which
essentially takes the structure to a stable state from a creep and shrinkage effects.
A summary of the results of the computer analysis results for the stay cables of
the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge is shown in Appendix B. The bridge has four planes
of stay cables, identified as planes “A” through “D” (see Appendix B). Cable planes A
and B support the southbound roadway, and cable planes C and D support the northbound
roadway. Each plane of say cables is comprised of a total of thirty-two cables, sixteen
cables radiating from each tower leg. From each tower there are eight cables to the side-
span and eight cables to the main span. The central tower leg anchors both cable planes B
and C.
The cables in an extradosed bridge are intended to primarily provide post-
tensioning of the girder. For extradosed bridge the stay cables are typically all sized the
same size (meaning the same number of strands), since the force variation in the cables
does not warrant variable stay size. However the construction of the bridge does need to
recognize that the erection procedure, as well as creep and shrinkage deformations effects
the final stay cable force distribution, and in order to provide a consistent final force
distribution to the cables, the cables may need to be installed to different initial jacking
forces.
The cables were all sized with 48 – 0.6” seven-wire Grade 270 strands in each
cable (ultimate tensile strength of 270 ksi). The cables are stressed to an initial value
184
between 1,093 kips and 1.534 kips (0.39 f’s to 0.54 f’s) as shown in Appendix B (Jacking
Force). This is the initial force the cable is jacked to the time of installation. This force
changes in response to the ongoing erection conditions of the structure, creep and
shrinkage effects and in response to live load demands. The initial jacking forces were
determined by a manual balancing process interactively using the software. A summary
of the AASHTO Load Group I results (permanent loads plus live load) for the stay cables
are shown in Figure 5-20.
Figure 5-20: Maximum Stay Stress For Group I Loading
The demand is relatively constant (except there is a slightly lower demand locally
at the side-span side tower 3). For this cable stress demand, a stay cable maximum load
limit of 0.55 f’s (148.5 ksi) was targeted.
185
The fatigue demand on the stay cables is also summarized in Appendix B. The
fatigue stress range is based on truck loading, considering multiple lanes loaded. The
resulting live load stress range for the individual cables varies from 0.9 ksi to a maximum
range of 4.9 ksi calculated for a stress range of 2 million cycles. From Figure 4-7 we can
determine the permissible maximum strand stress based on a fatigue demand of 4.9 ksi.
Figure 5-21 shows that relation, resulting is a permissible maximum strand stress of
0.593 ksi. However, a maximum stress level of 0.55 f’s was conservatively chosen for
design for sizing the cables, given that there had been limited testing on the individual
strand specimens at maximum stresses other than 0.6 f’s and 0.45 f’s.
Figure 5-21: Determination Of Maximum Allowable Strand Stress Based On A Fatigue

Demand Of 4.9 KSI.
186
5.5. Stay Cable Design (Using Variable ϕ-Factor)
As discussed in Section 4.4, approach to extradosed bridge cable design that is
proposed in the draft 6th edition of PTI’s recommendations for Stay Cable Design (PTI,
6th Ed.) is to use a variable ϕ-Factor that is determined based on the total live load + wind
to MUTS ratio. This approach presumes that the design is based on the LRFD design
approach in the 2010 AASHTO Bridge Specifications (AASHTO, 2010).
In section 5.4 the design of the cables was developed based on allowable stress
design and with the fatigue limits and maximum stay stress developed from single
element test results. Using those same cable sizes, but using the design approach using
the variable ϕ-factor, the stay loading in Appendix B is revised to the LRFD design
approach, meaning that the loads have been factored to the appropriate load
combinations. The results of this analysis are shown in the spreadsheets titled “Factored
LRFD Load Summary with Variable phi-Factor” in Appendix B. For the A, B and D
cable planes all stay stresses are within the factored resistance limits using the variable ϕ-
factor. For cable plane C there are 7 cables (C-18 through C-24) that are overstressed up
to 6.2% for Group I loading (dead plus live load) and up to 9.6% for Group V loading
(including wind).
It is noted that the variable ϕ-factor calculation is based on the ratio of live load +
wind stress divided by the maximum ultimate tensile strength of the cable (MUTS).
Reviewing the load summaries, the reason these seven cables are overstressed is related
to their wind loading, and its effect on the ϕ-factor. For these cables, the wind stress is
relatively high, and this results in a reduction of the ϕ-factor to nearly that of a
conventional cable stayed bridge, and hence the overstress.
187
AASHTO has historically assessed wind loads for a fewer number of fatigue
cycles than for live loads. Wind fatigue is typically assessed at few hundred thousand
cycles, whereas live loads cycles are based on actual traffic loading and the service life of
the structure, often reaching 50 million or more cycles of fatigue. By including the wind
stress in the determination of the ϕ-factor, the wind effects on cable fatigue are treated
the same as live load effects, which is not the case. Referring to Figure 4-4, the fatigue
capacity of the cable at a few hundred cycles of fatigue is substantially higher that the
design limit of the cables. Fatigue effects from wind will not typically govern the design
of the cables, and therefore need not be included in the assessment of the maximum stay
cable stress. If we re-calculate the ϕ-factor as a function of live load/MUTS (leaving the
wind stress out of the equation), then the overstress would not occur and the design
would be acceptable.
It is the authors opinion that the approach to the variable ϕ-factor presented in the
draft PTI specifications (PTI 6th ed,) are overly conservative in the inclusion of wind
stress in the determination of the variable ϕ-factor, and shown for the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge, will in some cases result in designs being unnecessarily controlled by
the wind provisions.
5.6. Stay Cable Design (Using Single Element Strand Criteria With Variable Φ-
Factor)
Section 4.5 presents the authors proposed approach to adaptation of the single
element acceptance criteria to the LRDF design approach.
188
Based on this approach, we extract the maximum cable stress from the
spreadsheets in Appendix B titled “Factored LRFD Load Summary with Variable phi-
Factor”. We use the Group I loading case, since live load stress variations are the
appropriate load case for fatigue considerations. That stress is 191 ksi for Group I loading
for cable C-8. Solving for the required ϕ-factor (from Eq. 4-5):
1.25(DL) + 1.75(LL) ϕ f’s
191 ϕ 270
ϕ 0.71
From Figure 4-8 with ϕ=0.71 we get an allowable fatigue range of 12.5 ksi. From the
above referenced spreadsheet in Appendix B, the maximum fatigue demand is 4.9 ksi <
12.5 ksi, therefore the design is acceptable.
The design could also be approached with the determination of the ϕ-factor based
on the required fatigue stress range. Working from a required fatigue demand of 4.9 ksi,
we determine the ϕ-factor of 0.775 (say 0.77) from Figure 4.8. This gives a factored
resistance of 0.77(270) = 208 ksi, which meets all of the demand requirements in the
referenced spreadsheet in Appendix B.
The authors approach to a LRFD design approach using single element strand
criteria to relate the allowable strand stress to a variable ϕ-factor provides a simple and
direct method of relating the cable maximum stress limit and fatigue resistance, based on
single element strand criteria that has been verified by physical testing. This method
which uses a LRFD design approach was applied to a real-world bridge example of the
189
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge and gave results that are consistent with the original
design which was based on an allowable stress design procedure.
5.7. Aerodynamic Considerations
Cable stayed bridges are typically “flexible” and represent a class of potentially
aerodynamically active structures that can exhibit a variety of undesirable responses to
wind induced vibrations. These can include behaviors of the overall bridge system, such
as vortex shedding motions, buffeting motions and aerodynamic instabilities due to
flutter; and can also include local behaviors of the stay cables including buffeting, vortex
shedding, galloping, or wind/rain induced motions. The local cable behaviors have been
typically addressed in extradosed bridges, similar to what is typically addressed in cable
stayed bridges. However the behaviors of the overall system have in most cased not been
addressed in extradosed bridges. The experience (in Japan, for instance) has been that the
extradosed bridges exhibit sufficient stiffness to perform as a girder bridge and do not
exhibit the class of aerodynamic responses that result in aerodynamically active
structures.
As the first extradosed bridge design in the United States, and considering that
there are not specific guidelines on the definition of where special aerodynamic
considerations need to be applied, The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge was subjected to an
evaluation of the wind performance of the structure including wind tunnel testing
(Raggett, 2007). Figure 5-22 shows the wind tunnel model.
The wind tunnel modeling technique was to use a section-model test. This type of
testing only models a short section of the bridge, rather than the full bridge. The section
190
Figure 5-22: Wind Tunnel Model (Courtesy West Wind Laboratory)
191
model can be constructed to a much larger scale than a full bridge model due to wind
tunnel size limitations. The section model provides aerodynamic coefficients that are
used analytically to predict full bridge behavior.
The overall structure was investigated in its completed state and for four erection
stages that were judged most critical. Those erection stages were:
Northbound bridge only: maximum cantilever prior to side span closure with one
segment unbalance
Northbound bridge only: maximum cantilever prior to side span closure balanced.
Northbound bridge complete and southbound bridge at maximum cantilever prior
to side span closure with one segment unbalance
Northbound bridge complete and southbound bridge at maximum cantilever prior
to side span closure balanced.
The results of the wind tunnel testing can be summarized as follows:
The overall bridge in its completed stage or erection stages was found to be stable
against high speed flutter instabilities.
No incidence of low-speed vortex shedding motions was noted for the overall
bridge for the completed bridge or during the various erection stages.
Buffeting motions were analyzed for the completed bridge and for erection stages.
These essentially provided the “gust factor” that static wind is modified by in
order to account for the effects of turbulence, wind gusts and structure dynamic
response. These effects were found to result in a significant magnification static
wind effects that were included in the design at the completed stage. For the
192
erection stages the structure was designed for a 10 year recurrence wind, with a
provision that hurricane tie-downs were provided is winds in excess of specified
levels were anticipated (in general, an impending hurricane).
The wind stability analysis also included an analytical evaluation of the local
aerodynamic performance of the stay cables. This study concluded that the two stays
each side of the tower did not require supplemental dampers. All other cables required
supplemental damping that was provided with hydraulic damper assemblies. Dapper
displacement ranges, maximum force, maximum velocity and power requirements were
provided at each cable, and grouped into practical ranges for the plans.
Extradosed bridges clearly represent a different class of structure as compared to
cable stayed bridge, and the results of the testing for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
reinforced the idea that these structures are not susceptible to high speed flutter
instabilities or vortex shedding responses. However the evaluations for the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge clearly indicated the value of aerodynamic testing with regard to
buffeting response and evaluation of the erection stages.
5.8. Discussion
The design for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Design provided an opportunity
to apply many of the design parameters, characteristics and features that are
recommended to guide developing designs to a real-world bridge example. Key results
from this exercise can be summarized as follows:
193
Although most extradosed bridges are all-concrete structures, there can be
significant advantages to using composite or hybrid structures, depending on the
specific project conditions.
The recommended in Chapter 3 for such design parameters as span length ranges,
main/side span ratios, tower height/span ration, deck depth and deck haunch
proportions were confirmed to provide reasonable limits for setting bridge
proportions for extradosed bridges.
The importance of establishing a detailed and accurate erection method was
validated. This includes casting assumptions for the concrete members, detailed
placement sequences and stages of erection, weights and configurations of
erection equipment and establishing reasonable time-scales for erection activities.
The importance of selection of the proper cross-section of the girder/deck
assembly was emphasized. Extradosed bridges are more efficient for relatively
narrow bridge decks, but can be designed with very wide decks with proper
design considerations.
A key design decision is to establish the design criteria that will govern the stay
cable strength and fatigue design. There presently is no code guidance on these
criteria. Three design procedures were presented and compared. All three
procedure yielded acceptable designs.
The importance of wind tunnel testing for extradosed bridges was presented.
Extradosed bridge can provide excellent opportunities for providing visually
striking landmark bridges. However the design development must recognize the
structural form requirements of this bridge type, it should take in to consideration
194
the unique site conditions and opportunities they provide, and require careful and
thoughtful attention to detailing.
195
Chapter 6: Conclusions And Recommendations
6.1. Objectives Of This Dissertation
The title of the dissertation, “On the Development of the Extradosed Bridge
Concept” previews at the broad objective of this dissertation. The Extradosed Bridge is a
relative new type of bridge, and there is very limited treatment of the subject in the
literature. Most of the literature provides superficial descriptions of projects, and
provides very little discussion of the detailed design requirements for this bridge type. As
such, the scope of this dissertation is necessarily broad. That is to organize and discuss
the current state of practice for this bridge type, to identify any knowledge areas where
the current practice is lacking, and to contribute to the advancement of the state of
knowledge in those areas identified; to provide a treatise on the development of this
bridge concept.
This broad objective was further focused as four specific objectives that provide
the organization of this dissertation:
Provide a summary and discussion of extradosed bridges constructed worldwide
Provide an assessment and recommendations on proportioning parameters,
characteristics and features of extradosed prestressed bridges
Provide an assessment and recommendations of stay-cable design criteria for
extradosed prestressed bridges, and
196
Apply the recommendations to a prototype design to assess the application of the
recommended proportioning parameters, characteristics, features and stay cable
design criteria.
Each of these specific objectives has been addressed in detail in Chapters 2
through 5, with a chapter dedicated to each of these topics. In each of these chapters there
have been several important contributions to the further understanding and advancement
of knowledge concerning extradoned bridge types. This chapter provides a summary of
those discussions, conclusions, recommendations and contributions.
6.2. An Assessment Of Representative Extradosed Bridges That Have Been
Constructed
There are more than 60 extradosed prestressed bridges that have been constructed
worldwide, however due to the very recent advancement of information on this bridge
type most countries have only one, or at most a few, of this bridge type. The exception is
Japan, which has at least 29 examples of this bridge type. Japan constructed the first of
this bridge type, and has actively promoted the continued development of this bridge
type. They are clearly the world leaders in this bridge technology. It follows that Japan
would be the best source of information about extradosed bridges. However there is
limited literature on the application of this bridge type. This is likely due in part to
language barriers, basic differences in design codes, and limited opportunities for in-
depth technical exchanges between Japan and the United States concerning design of
extradosed bridges.
197
As part of the preparation for this dissertation the author traveled to Japan as a
member of a delegation to gather information on extradosed prestressed bridges. This
included meeting with owners, designers and builders of this bridge type and included
field visits to five extradosed bridge that were either completed of under construction.
This in-depth exposure to these bridge projects and the people responsible for their
design, construction and maintenance, provided a unique opportunity to contribute to the
general understanding of the extradosed bridge type. Chapter 2 provides a detailed
summary of those visits and the information gained about each of the projects. Those
insights can be summarized as follows:
The extradosed bridge type can be cost effective for several reasons:
o For an extradosed bridge the prestressing is more effectively than a girder
bridge in terms of eccentricity of the prestress over the negative moment
region at the towers
o The prestresing is used more effectively in terms of a higher maximum
stress limit (0.6 f’s for extradosed versus 0.45 f’s for cable stayed,
representing a 33% reduction in cable material)
o Extradosed bridges require no backstay cables and no anchor pier
o The dead load of extradosed bridges is substantially reduced as compared
to girder bridges. This can have important consequences for seismic
design.
198
o Lower towers are easier to construct than cable stayed bridges, can be
constructed with conventional cranes as opposed to complex jump form
systems typically required for cable stayed bridges.
o For a given span length, the girder depth for an extradosed bridge will be
substantially less than a girder type bridge. This can have important cost
implications for the approaches to the bridge.
The line between cable stayed and extradosed is sometimes blurred. Some
longer-span extradosed bridges could also be designed as a cable stayed bridge if
conventional design criteria and standards were applied.
Although the stay cable criteria were the same for all the bridges discussed, the
basis for that criteria was evolving. Rather than simply assuming that an
allowable stress of 0.6 f’s could be used, it became obvious that some structural
rationally was needed for establishing the cable design criteria.
New technology and ideas were tried on almost every new bridge. This new
bridge type was, and continues to be, ripe for innovative ideas.
Extradosed bridge can be adapted to a wide range of cable/girder layouts,
including single plane of cables in the median or multiple planes of cables
supporting single or multiple decks.
199
Extradosed bridges were considered an aesthetic opportunity, with visual
characteristics superior to a conventional girder bridge.
The wide range of difficult geometric conditions that are commonly encountered
in the alignment of highways can be accommodated in extradosed bridges. These
bridges are not just viable for straight and constant width alignments. They can
be adapted to curved bridges and bridges with tapered widths.
The extradosed bridge types was shown to be a viable and cost effective new
bridge type, that is continuing to be developed in Japan as well as exported to other parts
of the world.
6.3. Extradosed Bridge System Parameters, Characteristics And Features
The goal of this section is to provide some preliminary design rules for
proportioning extradosed bridges. These are sometimes called “rules-of-thumb”, and they
help the designer set some initial structural proportions, or assess the applicability of the
extradosed bridge type to a particular set of site conditions. These “rules-of-thumb” do
not presently exist for extradosed bridges, or are presented in a variety of sources with a
number of contradictions..
To that end, this section makes an assessment of extradosed design issues,
focusing on three general areas:
basic system parameters that can be quantified, such as applicable main span
lengths, tower height ratios and appropriate girder depths;
200
design characteristics which are treated in a more qualitative approach, such as
applicability of extradosed bridges to curved alignments, application to multi-span
bridges and application to different girder material choices; and
design features of extradosed bridges, such as aesthetic opportunities.
With more than 60 examples of extradosed bridges worldwide, there is sufficient
data to make some statistical assessments draw come conclusions on appropriate limits of
the important system parameters. This is considered a preferable approach over
parametric studies of hypothetical designs, since the real-world examples are subject to
the nuances of design that sometimes are not realized is a parametric study. This also
provided an opportunity to assess and comment on several design characteristics and
features applied to real-world design situations.
6.3.1 Materials
The girder of extradosed prestressed bridges is most commonly concrete. The
basic premise of extradosed bridges is to prestress the girder with external post tensioning
cables (the stay cables), and concrete is an ideal material for this application. Concrete is
strong in compression and weak in tension, and the combination of the axial compression
and the flexural moment counter to the externally applied moments can be tuned to
optimize this material.
However there can also be special applications of steel to extradosed bridges; in
several forms.
201
A hybrid design, with an all concrete girder except the central portion of the main
span uses a orthotropic or composite steel girder. The weight savings for the
main span can allow extradosed bridges to be used for longer spans or for cases
where short side spans are required by site conditions.
A composite design that uses a corrugated steel web with concrete top and bottom
flanges, for weight savings. This can be important for high seismic regions.
A composite design that uses a steel box girder with a composite concrete deck
slab. The resultant weight savings can reduce stay cable, tower and foundation
costs.
These steel designs should be considered where site conditions favor the
conditions noted above.
6.3.2 Applicable Span Range
Extradosed bridge have been typically applied to main-spans ranging from 300 to
600 feet. This provides an alternative to conventional girder bridges that tend to have
larger girder structural depths for long spans, and an option to the traditional long-span
bridge types of arch, truss and cable-stayed bridges, that are at the low end of their
applicability in this span range. These limits represent one standard deviation from the
mean of the existing population of extradosed bridges, and should not be construed to be
maximum limits. Extradosed bridges have been constructed with span lengths as little as
200 feet or up to 900 feet, and depending on site conditions may be appropriate for the
wider range of span lengths.
202
6.3.3 Main Span/Side Span Proportions
The ratio of side span to main span lengths can be an important parameter for the
economical design of the girder. For a three-span conventional girder bridge this ideal
ratio is about 0.65 in order to balance the positive and negative moments. For a three-
span cable stayed bridge this ration is about 0.42 to balance cable demand and to prevent
large uplifts at the anchor pier.
For extradosed bridge there is a wider range of acceptable side span/main span
ratios because the cables and girder share the load and can have some design flexibility in
their proportioning. An assessment of the existing population of extradosed bridge gives
a range between 0.45 and 0.69 for extradosed bridges for the side span/main span ratio.
It is noted that there can be important consequence at the low end of this range. If
the side span is too short, then uplift can result at the end piers under some live load
conditions. This must be resisted by mechanical hold down devices or by ballasting the
girder to give a positive reaction on the bearings.
6.3.4 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Multi-Span Bridges
Cable stayed bridge rely on backstay cables that connect the anchor pier to the top
of tower in order to stiffen the tower. They are ideal for a two-span or a three-span
application since these backstay cables naturally exist. However for multi-span bridge,
such as a four-span cable-stayed bridge, the central tower does not have backstays, and
presents a particular design challenge. Solutions include provision of a stiff central
tower, or providing additional cables from the top of the central tower to adjacent towers
203
(called cross-cables). Neither of these solutions is particularly elegant, and there are very
few examples of multi-span cable stayed bridge in the world.
For extradosed bridges, the structural system does not rely on backstay cables,
and they are ideally situated for multi span applications. Extradosed bridge can be
economically used for long over-water crossings requiring long-spans and several towers,
providing an important option to bridge engineers for this design condition.
6.3.5 Applicability Of Extradosed Bridges To Curved Or Tapered Bridge
Alignments
The real-world alignment of roadways often required bridges to be on curved
alignments or alignments that include tapering widths of the roadway to accommodate
entrance and exit ramps. For most of the longer-span bridge types, such as cable-stayed,
arch and truss bridges these alignments can present a challenge or even a limitation of the
applicability of the bridge type to a particular site. The main structural members can
conflict with the vehicle clearance envelope, or the torsional demands of the curved
alignment can put high demands of the structural system.
For extradosed bridges, the cables extend over only a portion of the spans, and
they typically are in a vertical plane or are inclined outward, both of which minimize
clearance conflicts with the vehicle clearance envelope. Extradosed bridges typically
utilize large box girders, that are very efficient in resisting the torsional demands of
curved or tapered alignments. The existing population of extradosed bridge has several
examples of extradosed bridge on complex curved or tapered alignments. They provide
the designer with an added bridge type option for these challenging alignments.
204
6.3.6 Tower Height
The height of the tower or more specifically the ratio of the tower height to main
span length is an important design parameter for extradosed bridges. In fact it is one of
the key defining parameters for the definition of an extradosed bridge as it affects the
design load in the cable and the fatigue stress in the cable. As the tower height increases,
the bridge begins to behave more like a cable-stayed bridge.
As assessment of existing extradosed bridges that have appropriate strength and
fatigue demand on the cables places the tower height to main span ratio between 1/7 to
1/13, with a typical value of 1/10.
6.3.7 Girder Depth/Girder Haunch Proportions
Another important design parameter for the initial sizing of bridge is the girder
depth proportions. This also includes the decision in whether to use a constant depth
(parallel flange) girder, or a variable depth (haunched) girder.
Extradosed bridges typically are constructed by a balanced cantilever erection
method that cantilevers the girder out from the towers. There is an advantage for using a
deeper girder at the tower, as it allows the larger cantilever before the installation of the
first stay cable. Therefore extradosed bridges typically use haunched girders, except for
very short spans, or for special cases that are not constructed in balanced cantilever.
An evaluation of existing extradosed bridge reveals a typical span/depth ratio
between 25:1 to 35:1 at the tower and 50:1 at mid-span.
205
6.3.8 Bridge Deck Width
The bridge deck width is not a design parameter; it is typically set as part of the
roadway traffic design requirements. It is, however, a design feature in that it can affect
the economy of the design and could influence choice of bridge type for a particular site.
Existing Extradosed brides have been used for a wide range of bride widths,
ranging from 30 to 110 feet in width. It is observed that even though extradosed bridges
have been used for wide bridges, there are special design considerations to this
application. The vertical load in the box girder is basically carried by shear in the webs.
At each stay cable location, a portion of that load is carried by the stay cable. This means
for box girders that have more than two webs (wide bridges) a load path must be
provided from the interior webs to the stay cables. There are several options for this load
transfer (transverse diaphragms, draped transverse post-tensioning), but they all add
complications (and cost) to the design. It should be noted if the designer has a choice, the
most efficient cross section for an extradosed bridge with be for a relatively narrow
bridge with two webs. For example, a bridge carrying two lanes in each direction can be
more efficiently designed as two separate decks, rather than one wide deck. However,
this should not be considered a hard design rule, as extradosed bridge can (and have)
been designed to a wide range of bridge widths.
6.3.9 Aesthetics
For a number of existing extradosed bridges, one of the factors in choosing an
extradosed bridge was the opportunity with this bridge type to provide a visually striking
bridge. The extradosed bridge type has the above deck features of towers and stay cables
206
that can provide an interesting visual character to the bridge crossing experience. And
the relatively thin deck (compared to a conventional girder bridge) can provide a graceful
and well-proportioned bridge for a long-span application.
Examples of several extradosed bridges are provided in chapter 3 that have
special architectural features to enhance the visual experience of the bridge. These
include, in addition to the basic form of the bridge, architectural shaping of the towers,
visual enhancement features (such as entry columns and colored cables), and aesthetic
lighting to feature the bridge at night.
6.4. Proposed Stay Cable Design Criteria
The design of the stay cables represents a key differentiator between cable-stayed and
extradosed bridges. The cables for extradosed bridges experience lower fatigue demand,
and consequently can be stressed to a higher tensile limit than cables of cable-stayed
bridges. Chapter 4 Reviewed existing cable design criteria, and then provided several
suggested improvements to current design practice and design criteria related to the design
of the stay cables, notably:
Recommendations are provided for single element fatigue performance for seven-
wire strand as a function of the maximum strand tensile stress (Figure 4-6).
An alternate procedure for fatigue design of the stay-cable of extradosed bridge
based on single element fatigue performance is provided, both in an allowable
stress format and an LRFD format (Figures 4-7 and 4-8).
Evaluation and recommendations were also provided for the physical testing of stay cables
of extradosed bridges and how the testing differs from Cable-stayed bridge cables:
207
Proposed PTI requirements for single element testing are confirmed. (Section 4.7)
Modifications to proposed PTI requirements for stay cable testing are
recommended (Section 4.8)
Several other features of the stay cable designs that are unique to extradosed
prestressed bridges was discussed, and appropriate commentary and recommendations
provided:
Stay anchorage details similar to cable-stayed bridge are proposed (Section 4.9)
It is recommended that the FHWA moratorium on the use of saddles for cable-
stayed bridge be lifted for extradosed bridges (section 4.10)
Stay corrosion protection details similar to cable stayed bridges are recommended
(Section 4.11)
Stay damping requirements for extradosed bridges are compared with the
requirements for cable-stayed bridges (Section 4.12)
In general the design of cables of extradosed prestressed bridge must be treated
differenty that the design of the cables of a cable-stayed bridge. Current criteria and
specifications do not fully address these differences, and recommended design criteria is
provided.
6.5. Application Of The Criteria And Recommendations To A Prototype Design
Chapter 5 applied the previously discussed lessons, design parameters, design
features and stay design criteria to a real-world bridge example. This exercise provides
208
important insights to the application of the criteria and the unique design issues related to
extradosed prestressed bridges. Key results from this exercise can be summarized as
follows:
Although most extradosed bridges are all-concrete structures, there can be
significant advantages to using composite or hybrid structures, depending on the
specific project conditions.
The recommended in Chapter 3 for such design parameters as span length ranges,
main/side span ratios, tower height/span ration, deck depth and deck haunch
proportions were confirmed to provide reasonable limits for setting bridge
proportions for extradosed bridges.
The importance of establishing a detailed and accurate erection method was
validated. This includes casting assumptions for the concrete members, detailed
placement sequences and stages of erection, weights and configurations of
erection equipment and establishing reasonable time-scales for erection activities.
The importance of selection of the proper cross-section of the girder/deck
assembly was emphasized. Extradosed bridges are more efficient for relatively
narrow bridge decks, but can be designed with very wide decks with proper
design considerations.
A key design decision is to establish the design criteria that will govern the stay
cable strength and fatigue design. There presently is no code guidance on these
209
criteria. Three design procedures were presented and compared. All three
procedure yielded acceptable designs.
The importance of wind tunnel testing for extradosed bridges was presented.
Extradosed bridge can provide excellent opportunities for providing visually
striking landmark bridges. However the design development must recognize the
structural form requirements of this bridge type, it should take in to consideration
the unique site conditions and opportunities they provide, and require careful and
thoughtful attention to detailing.
6.6. Concluding Remarks And Future Opportunities
Bridge engineers are continually challenged with providing safe and economical
designs that meet a wide range of site-specific conditions and imposed design criteria.
Increasingly, they are also challenged with providing structures that have strong visual
appeal. These so-called “landmark” or “signature” bridges satisfy a public appeal that
our built environment has aesthetic qualities, in addition to the basic requirements of
strength, safety and economy.
Extradosed Prestressed Bridge represents a new bridge type and a new “tool” that
bridge engineers can consider for a relatively broad class of bridge span lengths. In
particular they provide a unique bridge option that can be tailored to some challenging
site requirements while providing an economical structure and a bridge with the potential
for a strong visual presence.
210
Outside of Japan, this bridge type has seen limited application, due in part to lack
of familiarity and understanding of the features of this bridge type, due to the lack of
available information on this bridge type, importantly due to lack of well-defined stay
cable design criteria. This dissertation has provided a broad treatment of the features and
characteristics of this bridge type; it provides definition of key design and proportioning
parameters, it provides recommendations of stay cable design criteria including original
contributions to this important criteria, and it provides a real-world application of the
recommendations of this dissertation that provides insights to the design requirements of
extradosed prestressed bridges.
As bridge engineers become more familiar with this bridge type and as
information of the design requirements for this bridge type become more widely available
it is expected that extradosed bridges will see increased usage. The first extradosed
bridge the United Stated is under construction at this writing and should be completed by
2015. At least one other extradosed prestressed bridge is planned in the United States.
Many of our existing stream and waterway crossings were built 50 or more years ago and
are reaching the end of their service life. Many of these sites have bridge main span
requirements in the 300 to 600 foot span range where extradosed bridges provide a viable
and cost competitive alternative to more common bridge types. It is expected that over
the next decade in the United States, as the previous decade in Japan, there will be a
significant increase in the application of the extradosed bridge type. This increased
application is also expected bring the opportunity for further innovations with the
resulting improvements in performance and economy for extradosed prestressed bridges.
211
The future is bright for extradosed bridges, and the next decade will be an exciting time
for bridge engineers involved in the further development of this new bridge type.
212
References
AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, 2010.
Angola Press – Economica – New Catumbela Bridge to Help Re-Launch Economy,

Angola Press, 28 September 2011.
BD&E (Bridge Design and Engineering), High Tech Twins, Bridge Design and
Engineering Magazine, Fourth Quarter 1999, Issue No. 17, pp. 48-49.
Becze, J., Barta, J., Korong Prestressed Extradosed Bridge, International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering Journal (IABSE), SEI 01/2006
Benguela, Catumbela Bridge or ponte Da Catumbela,

http://benguela.zzl.org/catumbela_bridge.html, 2011
Binnis, Jessica, Extradosed Bridge Distinguishes Tollway Project in India, Civil

Engineering News magazine, February, 2005, p.20.
Buckland & Taylor, Golden Ears Bridge,

http://www.b-t.com/menu/project/designbuild/Pages/Golden-Ears-Bridge.aspx, 2005
Chilstrom, Joseph, Editor, “Extradosed Bridge Technology in Japan and the New Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge”, Report of the September 2001 delegation to Japan for the
Federal Highway Administration/U.S. Department of Transportation and the Connecticut
Department of Transportation, prepared by the delegation members, September 2000
CTL Group, “Final Report for Two 6-48 Stay Cable Acceptance Tests for the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge”, dated September 14, 2010, for Schwager Davis, Report No.
251099.
213
ENA (Ethiopian Roads Authority), Ethiopia-Abay Bridge to be Inaugurated on
September 10, 2008,
http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2008/09/06/ethiopia_abay_bridge_to_be_inagurated_o_
2008
ENR, Extradosed Box Girder Span Exposes Prestressing Cables, Engineering News
Record, February 21, 1994, pp. 20
FHWA, Feasibility of Standards for Segmental P/S Box Girder Bridges, Offices of
Research and Development Report No. FHWA/RD-82/024 dated July 1982.
FHWA, Post Tensioning Tendon Grouting and Installation Manual, Appendix C –

Further Applications of Post-Tensioning Tendon Applications, dated 03 October 2011,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/pt/ptappc.cfm
Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation, Okuyama, unpublished pamphlet provided by

Hanshin Kohsoku on September 14, 2001 (in Japanese).
Hinoru, Minoru, Ikeda, Hiroyuki, Kasuga, Akio and Komastu, Hideki, Composite
Extradosed Bridge, proceedings of the fib 1999, Session 5, Research and Innovation
Within a Project, pp. 661-666.
Honma, Atushi and Motohashi, Hidezo, The Extradosed Prestressed Concrete Bridges in
Japan, unpublished pamphlet provided by Japan Bridge and Structure Institute (JBSI), 14
September, 2001.
IBT (International Bridge Technologies), Second Vivekananda Bridge,

http://www.ibtengineers.com/ibt2011/projects/Sec_Vivekananda_Bridge.html, 2008
Ikeda, S., Kasuga, A., Development of Extradosed Structures in the Bridge Construction,
proceedings of the 25th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures: 23-24
August 2000, Singapore, pp. 85-93.
Janberg, Nicolas, International Database and Gallery of Structures,

http://en.structurae.de/structures/stype/index.cfm?ID=1072, Version 5.2, 2011.
214
Jaques, José Antonio Llombart, Fort, Jordi Revoltós, Puente sobre el rio Deba, Orba de
Actualidad, Revista de Orbas Públicas/Octubre 2005/No. 3.459, pp.71-74.
JHPC(a) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Kiso & Ibi Rivers – Construction of
Substructure, Undated Pamphlet, Japan Highway Public Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(b) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Kiso & Ibi Rivers – Construction of
Superstructure, Undated Pamphlet, Japan Highway Public Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(c) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Kiso River Bridge - Ibi River Bridge –
First PC-Steel Composite Extradosed Bridge, Undated Pamphlet, Japan Highway Public
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(d) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Odawara Blueway Bridge, Undated

Pamphlet, Japan Highway Public Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(e) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Rittoh Bridge – New Meishin Expressway,
Undated Pamphlet, Japan Highway Public Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(f) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Shinkawa Bridge, undated pamphlet,

Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(g) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Tsukuhara Bridge, undated pamphlet,

Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(h) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), New Developments in Extradosed

Bridges, unpublished pamphlet dated March 1996, Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(i) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Kanisawa Bridge, undated pamphlet,

Tokyo, Japan.
JHPC(j) (Japan Highway Public Corporation), Hozu Bridge, undated pamphlet, Tokyo,
Japan
215
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers), Very Large Extradosed PC-Steel Composite
Girder Bridges Under Construction – The KisoRiver and Ibi River Bridges, JSCE
International News, No. 4 September 2000.
jica, A Fifth Bridge Over the Mekong to Complete the East-West Transport Corridor in
Indochina, undated,
http://www.jica.go.jp/english/activities/jicaaid/project_e/lao/002/index.html
Kajima News and Notes, Kajima Selected for Friendship Bridge in Palau, Vol. 20 Spring
2002, http://www.kajima.co.jp/topics/news_notes/vol20/v20b.htm
Kasuga, Akio, Shirono, Yoshiaki, Nishibe, Gou, and Okamoto, Hiroaki, Design and
Construction of the Ordawa Port Bridge – The First Extradosed Prestressed Bridge,
Proceedings of the XIIth FIP International Congress, Washington, D.C., May 29-June 2,
1994, pp. F56-F62.
Kasuga, A., Kimizu, T., Matsui, Y., Testing of High Damping Rubber Damper for Stay
Cables, “Building for the 21st Century, Loo, Y. C. Editor, © EASEC-5 Secretariat,
Griffen University Gold Coast Campus, Australia, July 25-27, 1995, ISBN 0 86857 671
9.
Kasuga, Akio, Extradosed Bridges in Japan, Structural Concrete, Thomas Telford and
fib, 2006, No. 3, pp. 91-103
Kikuchi, Minoru and Tabata, Tomoya, Extradosed Prestressed Concrete Bridge –

Kanizawa Bridge, Prestressed Concrete in Japan, Proceedings of XIII FIP Congress,
Amsterdam, Holland, 1998
Leonhardt, F. and Zelner, W., Cable-Stayed Bridges, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineers, IABSE Surveys S-13/80, IABSE Periodica 2/1980, May 1980,
ISSN 0377-7251, pp. 21-48.
Lwin, Myint, Cable Stays of Cable-Stayed Bridges, FHWA Technical Advisory No.
5140.25, June 17, 1984, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/t514025.cfm
Mathivat, J., Recent Developments in Prestressed Concrete Bridges, FHP Notes,

Quarterly Journal of the Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte, 1988/2, pp. 15-20.
216
Komiya, Dr. Masahisa, A Characteristics and Design of PC Bridges with Large
Eccentric Cables (PC Extradosed Bridges), Japan & Structure Institute, Inc., report dated
16 March 1999.
LUSAS, Cable Stayed Bridge over River Labe at Nymburk, Case Study Report,
http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/river_labe_nymburk.html, January, 19, 2010.
Menn, Christian, Prestressed Concrete Bridges, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1986
Menn, Christan, Functional Shaping of Piers and Pylons, Structural Engineering

International, SEI Volume 8, Number 4, April, 1998, pp.249-251.
Ogawa, and Kasuga, A. Extradosed Bridges in Japan. FIP Notes, 1998(a), 2, pp. 11-15.
Ogawa, Atsuo; Kasuga, Akio; and Okamoto, Hiroaki, “Prestressed Concrete Extradosed
Bridge – Odawara Blueway Bridge-“, Prestressed Concrete in Japan, A report of the XIII
FIP Congress, Amsterdam, Holland, April, 1998(b), published by Japan Prestressed
Concrete Engineering Association.
Ogawa, Atsuo; Matsdud, Tetsuo; and Kasuga, Akio, The Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge
Near Kobe, Structural Engineering International, Volume 8 No. 3/1998, pp. 172-173.
Oishi, Tsuguo and Inokuma, Yasuo, “Aesthetic Design of Odawara Port Bridge ”,
Transportation Research Record 1549, Transportation Research Board, 1996, pp. 108-
113.
Oyamada, R. N.; Silvia, I. M.; Yamasaki, A. A.; Shimizu, R. I. Ishitani, H.; Long Term
Prestressing Losses, Forces and Deflections Analysis: An Actual Application,
Proceedings of the Second FIB Congress – Naples, 2006.
Paulson, Jr., Conrad, Frank, Karl and Breen, John, “A Fatigue Study of Prestressing
Strand”, Report No. FHWA/TX-82/54+300-1, University of Texas at Austin, April 1983.
Podolny, Walter, Jr. and Muller, Jean M., Construction and Design of Prestressed
Concrete Segmental Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, 1982, pp. 312.
217
Podolny, Walter, Jr., “Cable-Stayed Bridges State-Of-The–Art in the United States”,
Proceedings of A Seminar Series on Cable-Stayed Bridges held in Miami, Florida,
October 17-18, 1994. Edited by Ahmad H. Namini, University of Miami, Coral Gables,
FL
PTI, Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and Installation, 3th Ed., Post
Tensioning Institute, August, 1993
Tensioning Institute, February, 2001
Tensioning Institute, October 2007
Tensioning Institute, Unpublished draft. (Personal correspondence).
Raggett, John D., Wind Study - Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Concrete Option) New
Haven, Connecticut (Revised Foundation Design), West Wind Laboratory Report 01-
03A, July 2007
Reunion Equipment, Trois Bassins, personal correspondence, June, 2007,
Sanyo Expressway, Tsukuhara Bridge, undated pamphlet from the Sanyo Expressway,
New Kasumigaseki Building, Tokyo, Japan.
Schwager, Guido, 251095 SDI Strand Fatigue Tests (Q Bridge) - SDI Mono-Strand Test
Status 4-8-2010 Final, personal correspondence dated April, 9, 2010.
Shirono, Yoshiaka, Takuwa, Isamu, Kasuga, Akio, and Okamoto, Hiroaka, The Design of
an Extradosed Prestressed Concrete Bridge – The Odawara Port Bridge, Proceedings of
the FIP Symposium 1993, Kyoto Japan, October 17-20, 1993, pp. 959-966.
Saul, Reiner and Svensson, Holger, “On the Corrosion Protection of Stay Cables”,
Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Verlag für Architektur und Technische Wissenchaften, Berlin,
1990 (in English).
218
State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Administration – Contracts
Section, Bid Tabulation, State Project Number 92-532, dated 03 June 2009.
Stroh, S.L., Lovett, T.G., “Kap Shui Mun Cable Stayed Bridge,” Proceedings of the
Fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference Volume 1, Transportation Research
Board (TRB), San Francisco, August, 1995.
Stroh, Steven .L., Lovett, Thomas .G., “The Houston Ship Channel Cable Stayed
Bridge,” Proceedings of the Sixth Joint US-Japan Workshop on Performance and
Strengthening of Bridge Structures and Research Needs, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, May 1990.
Stroh, Steven L., Stark, William R. and Chilstrom, Joseph E., “Design of the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge – an Extradosed Prestressed Bridge”, Proceedings of the
Twentieth International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Engineer’s Society of
Western Pennsylvania, 9-11 June 2003.
Stroh, Steven L., Stark, William R. and Chilstrom, Joseph E., “First of Its Kind”, Civil
Engineering, The Magazine of the American Society of Civil Engineers, August 2003,
pp. 54-59, 87.
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. “Prefabricated Saddle System for Extradosed

Bridges”, unpublished report dated November 25, 1998.
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. “The Draft for Insertion and Tensioning of the Stay
Cable”, Shinkawa Bridge, unpublished report dated November 25, 1998.
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. Personal correspondence (project schedule and project
data- Shinkawa Bridge) dated 12 September 2001
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. “Second Mandaue-Mactan Bridge”, undated report.
Tokoro, S., Komatsu, H., Nakasu, M., Mizuguchi, K., and Kasuga, A., A Sutdy on Wake-
Galloping for Stay Cables of Extradosed Bridges Employing Full Aeroelastic Cable
Model, Wind Engineering into the 21st Century, Larsen, Larose & Livesey Editors,
©1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 059 0.
219
Tomita, Minoru, Tei, Keigyoku and Takashi, Suda, Shin-Karato Bridge in Kobe, Japan,
Journal of the Structural Engineering International, 2/99, pp. 109-110.
TranScan, Team Identifies Technologies with Potential U.S. Application, Scanning Tour
of Asian Bridges, TranScan, Number 2, Summer 1998, pp.5, NCHRP Project 20-36.
Tsuchida, Takayuki and Tanaka, Hideaki, Design of Miyakodagawa Bridge, personal

correspondence from CTI Engineering Co. LTD. Japan, 12 September 2001.
VSL News, Republic of Laos – Pakse Bridge – VSL Expertise Helps Open Up South-East
Asia, VSL News Issue One 2000, pp. 8-11
Yasukawa, Yoshiyuki; Miyauchi, Hidetoshi; Kato, Hideki; and Nakazono, Akihiro; Plan
and Design of the Rittoh Bridge, proceedings of the 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, 2002,
pp. 33-39.
Yoshiaki, Shirono; Kasuga, Akio; Okamoto, Hiroaki, Okamoto, The design of an

Extradosed Prestreessed Concrete Bridge – The Odawara port Bridge-, Proceedings of
the FIP Symposium ’93, Kyoto, Japan, October 17-20, 1993.
220
Appendices
221
Appendix A:
Database Of Existing Extradosed Bridge Proportioning And Design Parameters
Table A-1: Database Of Existing Extradosed Bridge Proportioning And Design

Parameters
No. Bridge Country Year No Main Span Side span(s) ft. side/main
Completed Spans Ft ft span ratio span ratio
1 Odawara Blueway Bridge Japan 1994 3 400.1 242.7 242.7 0.61 0.61
2 Tsukuhara Japan 1997 3 590.4 214.5 250.6 0.36 0.42
3 Kanisawa Japan 1998 3 590.4 327.59 327.59 0.55 0.55
4 Shin Karato Bridge Japan 1998 3 459.2 243 226.6 0.53 0.49
5 Sunniberg Bridge Switzerland 1998 5 459.2 193.5 213.2 0.42 0.46
6 Pont de Saint-Remy-de-maurienne France 1999 2 172.2 48.5 0.28
7 Mitanigawa Daini Bridge Japan 1999 2 304.7
8 Second Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Philippines 1999 3 606.8 369 369 0.61 0.61
9 Shikari Bridge Japan 2000 5 459.2
10 Matakina Bridge Japan 2000 2 357.52 291.92 0.82
11 Sajiki Bridge Japan 2000 3 344.4
12 Yukizawa Bridge Japan 2000 3 232.88
13 Surikamigawa Bridge Japan 2000 1 278.2
14 Pakse Bridge Laos/Thailand 2000 3 469 403.4 300.1 0.86 0.64
15 Hozu Bridge Japan 2001 6 328 249.28 249.28 0.76 0.76
16 Nakanoie Bridge Japan 2001 2 198.77 198.77 1.00
17 Miyakodagawa Bridge (or Miyakoda River Bridge) Japan 2001 2 436 436 - 1.00 -
18 Kiso River Bridge Japan 2001 5 902 524.8 524.8 0.58 0.58
19 Ibi River Bridge Japan 2001 6 890.5 505.12 514.96 0.57 0.58
20 Shinkawa Japan 2002 5 426.4 295.2 264 0.69 0.62
21 Fukauara Bridge Japan 2002 5 295.2 203.69 216.48 0.69 0.73
22 Sashikubo Bridge Japan 2002 2 373.92 373.92 1.00
23 Koror-Babeldoab Bridge Palau 2002 3 810.16 268.96 268.96 0.33 0.33
24 Deba Bridge Spain 2003 3 216.48 131.2 131.2 0.61 0.61
25 Shin-Meisei Bridge Japan 2004 3 401.28 293.99 270.11 0.73 0.67
26 Himi Bridge Japan 2004 3 590.4 300.1 300.1 0.51 0.51
27 Tatekoshi Bridge Japan 2004 2 184.66 181.38 0.98
28 Tobiuo Bridge Japan 2004 5 426.4 295.2 264 0.69 0.62
29 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge Brazil-Peru 2005 3 360.8 213.2 213.2 0.59 0.59
30 Rittoh Bridge Japan 2005 4 557.6 459.2 377.2 0.82 0.68
Rittoh Bridge Japan 2005 5 524.8 508.4 246 0.97 0.47
31 Sannohe Bridge Japan 2005 3 656 3276.67 327.67 4.99 0.50
32 Pyung Yeo 2 Bridge Korea (South) 2005 3 393.6 213.2 213.2 0.54 0.54
33 Rio Branco Third Bridge Brazil 2006 3 295.2 177.1 177.1 0.60 0.60
34 Homeland Bridge Croatia 2006 3 393.6 236.16 236.16 0.60 0.60
35 Korong Extradosed Bridge Hungary 2006 2 203.29 171.41 0.84
36 Yanagawa Bridge Japan 2006 2 428.7 428.7 1.00
37 Tagami Bridge Japan 2006 2 263.06 263.06 1.00
38 Tokuyama Bridge Japan 2006 3 721.6 458.2 458.22 0.63 0.64
39 Nanchiku Bridge Japan 2006 3 360.8 223.2 223.2 0.62 0.62
40 Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge Laos/Thailand 2006 6 360.8 360.8 360.8 1.00 1.00
41 Kack-Hwa First Bridge Korea (South) 2006 3 377.2 180.4 328 0.48 0.87
42 Nymburk Bypass bridge Czech Republic 2007 3 432.96 134.48 134.48 0.31 0.31
43 Bridge of the European Union Poland 2007 3 262.4 196.8 196.8 0.75 0.75
44 Puh Bridge Slovenia 2007 5 328 328 328 1.00 1.00
45 Shindae Bridge South Korea 2007 4 255.84 147.6 147.6 0.58 0.58
46 Second Vivekananda Bridge India 2007 7 360.8
47 Abay Bridge (Blue Nile Gorge) Ethiopia 2008 3 476 259.5 259.5 0.55 0.55
48 Riga South Bridge Latvia 2008 9 360.8 360.8 360.8 1.00 1.00
49 Gum-Ga Grand Bridge Korea (South) 2007 7 410 279.9 279.6 0.68 0.68
50 Cho-Rack Bridge Korea (South) 2008 5 426.4 229.6 229.6 0.54 0.54
51 Ma-Tsu Bridge Taiwan 2008 2 410 410 1.00
52 Trois-Bassins France 2008 4 413.3 344.4 0.83
53 Catumbela Bridge Angola 2009 3 524.8
54 Karnaphuli Bridge Bangladesh 2009 6 656 656 656 1.00 1.00
55 Golden Ears Bridge Vancouver (BC) 2009 5 793.8 396.9 396.9 0.50 0.50
56 Xianshen River Bridge China 2009 2 446.08 429.68 0.96
57 Keong-An Bridge Korea (South) 2009 3 885.6
58 Orkojahuira Bridge Bolivia 2010 3 337.84 175.15 214.84 0.52 0.64
59 Choqueyapu Bridge Bolivia 2010 3 303.4 172.2 152.52 0.57 0.50
60 Kantutani Bridge Bolivia 2010 3 372.28 180.4 180.4 0.48 0.48
61 Povacska Bystrica D1 Motorway Viaduct Slovakia 2010 3 360.8
62 La Massana Bridge Andora 2012 2 NA
63 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge USA 2012 3 515 249 249 0.48 0.48
222
Appendix A: (Continued)
Table A-1: (Continued)

No. Bridge Tower Height Tower height Var/Con Deck Depth Deck Depth Deck Depth Deck Depth Deck
ft Ratio Depth at Tower (ft) ratio at tower at midspan (ft)ratio at midspan Width ft
1 Odawara Blueway Bridge 35.1 11.4 Var 11.5 34.8 7.2 55.6 42.6
2 Tsukuhara 42.64 13.8 Var 18 32.8 9.8 60.2 42.0
3 Kanisawa 63.14 9.4 Var 18.06 32.7 10.51 56.2 64.9
4 Shin Karato Bridge 39.36 11.7 Var 11.48 40.0 8.2 56.0
5 Sunniberg Bridge 40.6
6 Pont de Saint-Remy-de-maurienne Con 7.05 24.4 7.05 24.4
7 Mitanigawa Daini Bridge 42 7.3 Var 19.68 15.5 9.84 31.0
8 Second Mandaue-Mactan Bridge 59.5 10.2 Var 16 37.9 9.84 61.7 68.9
9 Shikari Bridge 32.5 14.1 Var 19.68 23.3 9.84 46.7 92.1
10 Matakina Bridge 37.1
11 Sajiki Bridge 40.3 8.5 Var 10.5 32.8 6.89 50.0
12 Yukizawa Bridge 41 5.7 Var 18.04 12.9 6.56 35.5
13 Surikamigawa Bridge 54.12 5.1 Var 16.4 17.0 9.18 30.3 30.2
14 Pakse Bridge 37.7
15 Hozu Bridge 29.52 11.1 Con 9.18 35.7 9.18 35.7 53.5
16 Nakanoie BridgeBridge (or Miyakoda River
Miyakodagawa 38.7 5.1 Var 13.12 15.2 8.2 24.2 70.2
17 Bridge) 65.6 12.0 Var 21.32 36.8 13.1 59.9 65.3
18 Kiso River Bridge 96.76 9.3 Var 22.96 39.3 13.12 68.8 108.2
19 Ibi River Bridge 96.76 9.2 Var 22.96 38.8 13.12 67.9 108.2
20 Shinkawa 41 10.4 Var 13.12 32.5 7.78 54.8 84.6
21 Fukauara Bridge 27.88 10.6 Var 9.84 30.0 8.2 36.0 44.9
22 Sashikubo Bridge 72.16 5.2 Var 21.32 17.5 10.5 35.6 37.1
23 Koror-Babeldoab Bridge
24 Deba Bridge 39.03 5.5 Con 8.85 24.5 8.85 24.5
25 Shin-Meisei Bridge 54.12 7.4 Con 11.48 35.0 11.48 35.0 62.3
26 Himi Bridge 64 9.2 Var 18 32.8 9.84 60.0 30.3
27 Tatekoshi Bridge 34.44 5.4 Var 9.51 19.4 5.9 31.3 62.8
28 Tobiuo Bridge 42.6 10.0 84.6
29 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge 49.2 7.3 Var 10.99 32.8 7.7 46.9 55.1
30 Rittoh Bridge 100.04 5.6 Var 24.6 22.7 14.76 37.8 54.1
Rittoh Bridge 100.04 5.2 Var 24.6 21.3 14.76 35.6 41.1
31 Sannohe Bridge 82 8.0 Var 21.32 30.8 11.48 28.5 44.1
32 Pyung Yeo 2 Bridge 77.1
33 Rio Branco Third Bridge 90.2 3.3 69.2
34 Homeland Bridge 54.12 7.3 Con 11.64 33.8 11.64 20.3 109.9
35 Korong Extradosed Bridge Con 5.25 38.7 5.25 38.7 52.0
36 Yanagawa Bridge 78.72 5.4 Var 21.32 20.1 13.12 32.7 57.1
37 Tagami Bridge 47.56 5.5 Var 14.76 17.8 9.84 26.7 58.4
38 Tokuyama Bridge 73.8 9.8 var 21.3 33.9 11.5 62.7 31.5
39 Nanchiku Bridge 36.08 10.0 Var 11.48 31.4 8.53 42.3 67.4
40 Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge 39.4
41 Kack-Hwa First Bridge
42 Nymburk Bypass bridge 51.82 8.4 Var 12.3 35.2 8.2 52.8 54.6
43 Bridge of the European Union 33.78 7.8 82.3
44 Puh Bridge
45 Shindae Bridge 39.36 6.5 74.0
46 Second Vivekananda Bridge 93.8
47 Abay Bridge (Blue Nile Gorge)
48 Riga South Bridge 43.72 8.3 112.4
49 Gum-Ga Grand Bridge 29.03 14.1 75.4
50 Cho-Rack Bridge 45.9
51 Ma-Tsu Bridge
52 Trois-Bassins
53 Catumbela Bridge
54 Karnaphuli Bridge
55 Golden Ears Bridge 131.2 6.1
56 Xianshen River Bridge 173.84 2.6
57 Keong-An Bridge 98.4
58 Orkojahuira Bridge 134.08 2.5
59 Choqueyapu Bridge 119.46 2.5
60 Kantutani Bridge 116.44 3.2
61 Povacska Bystrica D1 Motorway Viaduct 99.7
62 La Massana Bridge
63 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge 60 8.6 Var 16.187 31.8 11.27 45.7 110.5
223
Appendix A: (Continued)
Table A-1: (Continued)

No. Bridge Eff Deck Prestressing (psf) Girder ReinfStay allowable Radius of Comments
Thick (ft) Stay deck long deck trans Total long psf Ratio to fpu Curvature
1 Odawara Blueway Bridge 3.33 3.2 7.9 11.1 27.3 0.6 NA

2 Tsukuhara 4.1 4.8 7.0 11.8 37.3 0.6 NA
3 Kanisawa 0.4 NA
4 Shin Karato Bridge 1312 Twin Bridges, curved, tapered
5 Sunniberg Bridge 1650 Curved
6 Pont de Saint-Remy-de-maurienne 1640 Curved R=1640ft.
7 Mitanigawa Daini Bridge NA
8 Second Mandaue-Mactan Bridge 3.44 5.97 8.99 2.28 15.0 45 0.6 NA
9 Shikari Bridge NA
10 Matakina Bridge NA
11 Sajiki Bridge NA
12 Yukizawa Bridge NA
13 Surikamigawa Bridge NA
14 Pakse Bridge NA
15 Hozu Bridge 2.09 NA
16 Nakanoie Bridge NA
17 Miyakodagawa Bridge (or Miyakoda River Bridge) 6.4 21.9 28.3 0.6 NA 3-planes of stays
18 Kiso River Bridge 3.2 16.44 28.4 0.6 NA Hybrid Concrete/Orthotropic
19 Ibi River Bridge 3.5 17.87 31.4 0.6 NA Hybrid Concrete/Orthotropic
20 Shinkawa NA
21 Fukauara Bridge NA
22 Sashikubo Bridge NA
23 Koror-Babeldoab Bridge NA Hyrid with Steel center of main span
24 Deba Bridge 1312 Curved
25 Shin-Meisei Bridge NA
26 Himi Bridge 0.6 NA
27 Tatekoshi Bridge NA
28 Tobiuo Bridge NA 1-plane stays
29 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge NA
30 Rittoh Bridge NA Tokyo Bound (Corrugared Steel Web)
Rittoh Bridge NA Osaka Bound (Corrugated Steel Web)
31 Sannohe Bridge NA
32 Pyung Yeo 2 Bridge NA
33 Rio Branco Third Bridge NA
34 Homeland Bridge NA
35 Korong Extradosed Bridge NA
36 Yanagawa Bridge NA
37 Tagami Bridge NA
38 Tokuyama Bridge NA
39 Nanchiku Bridge NA
40 Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge NA
41 Kack-Hwa First Bridge 3.76 6.6 10.4 2952 Horizontal Curved
42 Nymburk Bypass bridge NA
43 Bridge of the European Union NA
44 Puh Bridge NA
45 Shindae Bridge NA
46 Second Vivekananda Bridge NA
47 Abay Bridge (Blue Nile Gorge) NA
48 Riga South Bridge NA
49 Gum-Ga Grand Bridge NA
50 Cho-Rack Bridge NA
51 Ma-Tsu Bridge NA
52 Trois-Bassins NA
53 Catumbela Bridge NA
54 Karnaphuli Bridge NA
55 Golden Ears Bridge NA Hybrid (Steel/Conc.)
56 Xianshen River Bridge NA
57 Keong-An Bridge NA
58 Orkojahuira Bridge NA
59 Choqueyapu Bridge NA
60 Kantutani Bridge NA
61 Povacska Bystrica D1 Motorway Viaduct NA
62 La Massana Bridge NA
63 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge NA Twin Bridges
224
Appendix A (Continued)
Source References for Appendix A Data:
1. Odawara Blueway Bridge

Ikeda, 2000
JHPC(d), undated
Kasuga, 1994
Kasuga, 1995
Kasuga, 2006
Ogawa, 1998
Oishi, 1996
Shirono, 1993
Sumitomo, 1998
Yoshiaki, 1993
2. Tsukuhara Bridge
Ikeda, 2000
JHPC(g), undated
Kasuga, 2006
Ogawa, 1998
Sanyo, undated
Sumitomo, 1998
3. Kanisawa Bridge
JHPC(i), undated
Kasuga, 2006
Kikuchi, 1998
4. Shin Karato Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
Hanshin, 2001
Tomita, 1999
5. Sunniberg Bridge
Janberg, 2011
Kasuga, 2006
Menn, 1998
6. Pont de Saint-Rémy-de-Maurienne
Janberg, 2011
7. Mitanigawa Daini Bridge
Kasuga, 2011
8. Second Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
Sumitomo, undated
9. Shikari Bridge
Janberg, 2011
10. Matakina Bridge
Janberg, 2011
11. Sajiki Bridge
Kasuga, 2011
225
12. Yukizawa Bridge

Kasuga, 2011
13. Surikamigawa Bridge
Kasuga, 2011
14. Pakse Bridge
Janberg, 2011
jica, undated
VSL, 2000
15. Hozu Bridge
JHPC(j), undated
16. Nakanoie Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
17. Miyakodagawa Bridge (or Miyakoda River Bridge)
Kasuga, 2006
Tsuchida, , 2001
18. Kiso River Bridge
BD&E, 1999
Hirano, 1999
JHPC(a), undated
JHPC(b), undated
JHPC(c), undated
JSCE, 2000
Kasuga, 2006
Tokoro, 1999
19. Ibi River Bridge
BD&E, 1999
Hirano, 1999
JHPC(a), undated
JHPC(b), undated
JHPC(c), undated
JSCE, 2000
Kasuga, 2006
Tokoro, 1999
20. Shinkawa Bridge
JHPC(f), undated
Kasuga, 2006
Sumitomo, 1998
Sumitomo, 2001
21. Fukauara Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
22. Sashikubo Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
226
23. Koror-Babeldoab Bridge

Kajima, 2002
Janberg, 2011
24. Deba Bridge
Janberg, 2011
Jaques, 2005
25. Shin-Meisei Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
26. Himi Bridge
JHPC(g), undated
Kasuga, 2006
27. Tatekoshi Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
28. Tobiuo Bridge
Janberg, 2011
29. Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge
Janberg, 2011
Oyamada, 2006
30. Rittoh Bridge
Janberg, 2011
JHPC(e), undated
Kasuga, 2006
Yasukawa, 2002
31. Sannohe Bridge
Janberg, 2011
Kasuga, 2006
32. Pyung Yeo 2 Bridge
Janberg, 2011
33. Rio Branco Third Bridge
Janberg, 2011
34. Homeland Bridge
Janberg, 2011
35. Korong Extradosed Bridge
Becze, 2006
Janberg, 2011
36. Yanagawa Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
37. Tagami Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
38. Tokuyama Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
39. Nanchiku Bridge
Kasuga, 2006
227
40. Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge

Janberg, 2011
41. Kack-Hwa First Bridge
Janberg, 2011
42. Nymburk Bypass bridge
Janberg, 2011
LUSAS, 2010
43. Bridge of the European Union
Janberg, 2011
44. Puh Bridge
Janberg, 2011
45. Shindae Bridge
Janberg, 2011
46. Second Vivekananda Bridge
Binnis, 2005
IBT, 2008
Janberg, 2011
47. Abay Bridge (Blue Nile Gorge)
ENA, 2008
48. Riga South Bridge
Janberg, 2011
49. Gum-Ga Grand Bridge
Janberg, 2011
50. Cho-Rack Bridge
Janberg, 2011
51. Ma-Tsu Bridge
Janberg, 2011
52. Trois-Bassins
Janberg, 2011
Reunion, 2007
53. Catumbela Bridge
Angola Press, 2009
Benguela, 2011
Janberg, 2011
54. Karnaphuli Bridge
Janberg, 2011
55. Golden Ears Bridge
Buckland & Taylor, 2005
Janberg, 2011
56. Xianshen River Bridge
Janberg, 2011
57. Keong-An Bridge
Janberg, 2011
228
58. Orkojahuira Bridge

Janberg, 2011
59. Choqueyapu Bridge
Janberg, 2011
60. Kantutani Bridge
Janberg, 2011
61. Považská Bystrica D1 Motorway Viaduct
Janberg, 2011
62. La Massana Bridge
Janberg, 2011
63. Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
Chilstrom, 2001
CTL, 2010
Raggett, 2007
Schwager, 2010
State of Connecticut, 2009
Stroh, June 2003
Stroh, August, 2003
229
Appendix B:
Calculation Summary for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
Notes on Computer Modeling of Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge:
Linear FEM model developed for bridge structure using tangent stiffness of stay
cables (Figure B-1)
Longitudinal Analysis performed using RM2000 software
3-D Model Using Beam Elements and a Single Spine Per Girder
Simulated Construction Schedule with a Total of 121 Stages per deck
Time Dependent Behavior uses 1978 CEB/FIP Provisions for Creep and Shrinkage
Post –Tensioning installed to a Jacking Force of 70% f’s
Stay Cables Installed to prescribed Jacking Forces
Figure B-1: RM2000 Model of Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
230
Appendix B: (Continued)
231
Figure B-2: Stay Cable Numbering Scheme for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
231
Table B-1: Unfactored Cable Forces for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane A
CABLES LOADS (Kips)

CABLE NUMBER CABLE CABLE WT. JACKING PERMANENT LOADS (D) LIVE LOAD + IMPACT ( LL + I ) EXTREME WIND WIND ON LONG. TU + 0.5*DT
NUMBER STRANDS AREA (in2) (Lb/ft) FORCE T=1 T=2 T=oo MAX. LANE MIN. LANE MAX. TRUCK MIN. TRUCK WIND (W1) (W2) LL (WL) FORCE (LF) (T)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
A-1 48 10.42 35.92 1,118 0 1,423 1,386 42 -10 15 -4 64 9 0 0 9
A-2 48 10.42 35.92 1,144 0 1,418 1,375 41 -8 14 -3 60 9 0 0 4
A-3 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 0 1,415 1,366 40 -6 14 -2 57 8 1 1 6
A-4 48 10.42 35.92 1,189 0 1,412 1,356 41 -5 13 -2 55 8 1 1 12
A-5 48 10.42 35.92 1,188 0 1,396 1,331 42 -5 13 -3 54 8 1 1 19
A-6 48 10.42 35.92 1,268 0 1,416 1,341 44 -6 14 -3 57 8 2 2 28
A-7 48 10.42 35.92 1,256 0 1,402 1,314 48 -6 14 -3 62 9 2 3 39
A-8 48 10.42 35.92 1,188 0 1,388 1,285 53 -8 16 -4 72 11 3 3 54
A-9 48 10.42 35.92 1,534 0 1,396 1,393 30 -7 13 -3 73 11 2 3 54
A-10 48 10.42 35.92 1,482 0 1,398 1,388 35 -5 14 -3 74 11 1 2 40
A-11 48 10.42 35.92 1,428 0 1,401 1,385 41 -5 15 -2 76 11 1 1 29
A-12 48 10.42 35.92 1,356 0 1,397 1,375 45 -5 16 -2 78 11 0 0 20
A-13 48 10.42 35.92 1,306 0 1,403 1,374 48 -5 17 -2 80 12 0 0 13
A-14 48 10.42 35.92 1,239 0 1,388 1,354 50 -6 18 -2 80 12 0 0 7
A-15 48 10.42 35.92 1,189 0 1,384 1,345 51 -6 18 -3 79 12 1 1 2
A-16 48 10.42 35.92 1,147 0 1,383 1,338 51 -7 19 -3 77 11 1 1 6
A-17 48 10.42 35.92 1,130 0 1,373 1,323 53 -7 20 -4 88 13 1 1 7
A-18 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 0 1,377 1,331 56 -8 20 -3 92 13 1 1 7
232
A-19 48 10.42 35.92 1,214 0 1,374 1,333 60 -9 21 -3 95 14 1 1 7
A-20 48 10.42 35.92 1,267 0 1,379 1,341 62 -10 22 -3 98 14 1 1 8
A-21 48 10.42 35.92 1,318 0 1,377 1,343 65 -12 23 -4 100 15 0 1 8
A-22 48 10.42 35.92 1,370 0 1,382 1,350 67 -13 24 -6 101 15 0 1 8
A-23 48 10.42 35.92 1,416 0 1,375 1,346 69 -16 24 -7 101 15 0 0 9
A-24 48 10.42 35.92 1,465 0 1,374 1,345 71 -18 25 -8 100 15 0 0 10
A-25 48 10.42 35.92 1,147 0 1,275 1,202 26 -9 14 -5 39 6 1 1 1
A-26 48 10.42 35.92 1,206 0 1,291 1,227 26 -6 12 -3 39 6 1 1 2
A-27 48 10.42 35.92 1,220 0 1,311 1,254 27 -4 10 -2 40 6 1 2 3
A-28 48 10.42 35.92 1,156 0 1,328 1,279 28 -4 8 -2 42 6 1 2 5
A-29 48 10.42 35.92 1,155 0 1,345 1,301 30 -4 9 -2 46 7 2 2 7
A-30 48 10.42 35.92 1,150 0 1,363 1,324 32 -5 10 -2 51 8 2 2 8
A-31 48 10.42 35.92 1,130 0 1,376 1,342 35 -6 12 -3 57 8 2 2 9
A-32 48 10.42 35.92 1,103 0 1,384 1,355 39 -9 13 -3 63 9 2 2 11
1 FOR CABLE NUMBERING, SEE FIGURE B-1 13 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE FOR EXTREME WIND ON UNLOADED
STRUCTURE
5 INITIAL JACKING FORCE
14 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE FOR WIND COMBINED WITH OTHER ACTION FORCES
6 PERMANENT LOAD AT OPENING TO NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC.
15 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE FROM WIND ON LIVE LOAD
7 PERMANENT LOAD AT OPENING TO SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC.
16 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE FROM BRAKING AND FRICTION FORCES
8 PERMANENT LOAD AFTER CREEP AND SHRINKAGE.
17 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE FROM COMBINATION OF UNIFORM TEMPERATURE,
9 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE (DUE TO LANE LOAD) AND ONE-HALF THE TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN STAYS AND DECK / TOWER.
10 MINIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE (DUE TO LANE LOAD)
11 MAXIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE (DUE TO MULTI-LANE TRUCK LOADING)
12 MINIMUM STATIC CABLE FORCE (DUE TO MULTI-LANE TRUCK LOADING)
232
Bridge – Cable Plane A
LOADS (Kips) STRESSES (KSI)

CABLE STATIC STATIC GOVERNING FATIGUE
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV GROUP V GROUP VI
NUMBER GROUP I GRP II to VI GROUP TRUCKS
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
A-1 1465 1487 1468 1474 1441 1477 141 143 I 1.8
A-2 1459 1478 1462 1462 1430 1466 140 142 I 1.7
A-3 1455 1472 1459 1461 1429 1465 140 141 I 1.5
A-4 1452 1467 1457 1464 1431 1468 139 141 I 1.5
A-5 1438 1451 1443 1457 1423 1462 138 140 I 1.5
A-6 1461 1473 1467 1488 1452 1494 140 143 I 1.6
A-7 1450 1464 1457 1489 1450 1496 139 144 I 1.7
A-8 1440 1459 1449 1494 1452 1503 138 144 I 1.9
A-9 1426 1469 1434 1480 1461 1488 137 143 I 1.6
A-10 1433 1472 1440 1474 1449 1480 138 142 I 1.6
A-11 1442 1478 1447 1471 1442 1476 138 142 I 1.7
A-12 1442 1476 1446 1462 1429 1467 138 142 I 1.8
A-13 1451 1483 1455 1464 1428 1468 139 142 I 1.9
A-14 1438 1468 1442 1445 1407 1450 138 141 I 2.0
A-15 1435 1463 1440 1437 1398 1442 138 140 I 2.0
A-16 1434 1460 1439 1440 1400 1445 138 140 I 2.1
A-17 1427 1461 1432 1434 1393 1439 137 140 I 2.2
A-18 1434 1469 1439 1441 1397 1446 138 141 I 2.3
A-19 1434 1470 1440 1441 1396 1447 138 141 I 2.4
A-20 1441 1476 1447 1448 1400 1454 138 142 I 2.5
A-21 1442 1477 1447 1450 1399 1455 138 142 I 2.6
A-22 1449 1482 1454 1457 1405 1463 139 142 I 2.8
A-23 1445 1476 1450 1454 1399 1459 139 142 I 3.0
A-24 1445 1474 1450 1456 1399 1461 139 142 I 3.2
A-25 1301 1315 1305 1301 1282 1305 125 126 I 1.9
A-26 1317 1330 1321 1319 1299 1323 126 128 I 1.5
A-27 1337 1350 1342 1341 1320 1345 128 130 I 1.2
A-28 1356 1371 1361 1361 1340 1366 130 132 I 1.0
A-29 1375 1391 1380 1381 1358 1387 132 134 I 1.0
A-30 1395 1414 1401 1403 1378 1409 134 136 I 1.2
A-31 1411 1433 1418 1421 1394 1427 136 138 I 1.4
A-32 1424 1447 1431 1434 1404 1441 137 139 I 1.6
18 GROUP I = DL + ( LL + I )
19 GROUP II = DL + W1
20 GROUP III = DL + ( LL + I ) + 0.3 ( W2 ) + WL + LF
22 GROUP V = DL + W2 + T
23 GROUP VI = DL + ( LL + I ) + 0.3 ( W2 ) + WL + LF + T
24 MAXIMUM STATIC STRESSES: 18 TO 23 / 3 DUE TO GROUP EFFECTS

AND PERMISSIBLE STATIC STRESSES (fs): GROUP I: fs = 0.55 f's = 1 48.5 KSI
25 GROUP COMBINATIONS II THRU VI: fs = 0.60 f's = 162.0 KSI
27 MAXIMUM FATIGUE STRESSES 10 + 11 / 3 (TRUCK CONTROLLING)

PERMISSIBLE FATIGUE STRESS RANGE (fsr): TRUCK: fsr = 9.57 KSI
233
Table B-3: Unfactored Cable Forces for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane B
CABLES LOADS (Kips)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
B-1 48 10.42 35.92 1,118 0 1,392 1,323 42 -10 15 -5 31 5 1 1 14
B-2 48 10.42 35.92 1,144 0 1,388 1,312 42 -10 14 -5 31 5 1 1 8
B-3 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 0 1,387 1,305 43 -10 14 -5 33 5 1 1 2
B-4 48 10.42 35.92 1,189 0 1,390 1,299 45 -10 14 -6 37 5 1 1 5
B-5 48 10.42 35.92 1,188 0 1,376 1,276 47 -11 15 -6 43 6 1 2 13
B-6 48 10.42 35.92 1,268 0 1,374 1,262 50 -12 16 -7 51 7 1 2 22
B-7 48 10.42 35.92 1,256 0 1,348 1,220 55 -14 18 -7 61 9 2 2 33
B-8 48 10.42 35.92 1,188 0 1,305 1,159 61 -17 20 -8 74 11 3 3 48
B-9 48 10.42 35.92 1,534 0 1,413 1,470 51 -31 22 -13 123 18 2 3 52
B-10 48 10.42 35.92 1,482 0 1,410 1,455 55 -27 23 -12 123 18 1 2 37
B-11 48 10.42 35.92 1,428 0 1,409 1,444 58 -25 24 -11 124 18 1 1 25
B-12 48 10.42 35.92 1,356 0 1,409 1,435 61 -24 24 -10 125 18 1 1 16
B-13 48 10.42 35.92 1,306 0 1,411 1,429 63 -22 25 -9 125 18 1 1 9
B-14 48 10.42 35.92 1,239 0 1,398 1,409 64 -21 25 -8 125 18 1 1 4
B-15 48 10.42 35.92 1,189 0 1,393 1,398 64 -20 25 -8 123 18 1 1 8
B-16 48 10.42 35.92 1,147 0 1,391 1,389 63 -19 24 -7 121 18 1 1 12
B-17 48 10.42 35.92 1,130 0 1,376 1,347 78 -36 29 -12 145 21 1 2 5
B-18 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 0 1,382 1,359 81 -36 30 -12 149 22 1 2 5
B-19 48 10.42 35.92 1,214 0 1,381 1,362 84 -37 30 -13 153 22 1 2 6
B-20 48 10.42 35.92 1,267 0 1,384 1,369 86 -38 31 -13 156 23 1 2 6
234
B-21 48 10.42 35.92 1,318 0 1,385 1,374 88 -40 31 -14 159 23 2 2 7
B-22 48 10.42 35.92 1,370 0 1,392 1,384 90 -42 32 -15 161 24 2 2 8
B-23 48 10.42 35.92 1,416 0 1,388 1,383 92 -44 32 -17 163 24 2 2 9
B-24 48 10.42 35.92 1,465 0 1,387 1,385 94 -47 33 -18 165 24 2 3 10
B-25 48 10.42 35.92 1,147 0 1,191 1,103 57 -38 26 -14 87 13 2 2 1
B-26 48 10.42 35.92 1,206 0 1,230 1,151 53 -30 24 -12 77 11 2 2 3
B-27 48 10.42 35.92 1,220 0 1,259 1,188 49 -24 22 -10 68 10 1 2 4
B-28 48 10.42 35.92 1,156 0 1,305 1,241 46 -18 20 -8 61 9 1 2 6
B-29 48 10.42 35.92 1,155 0 1,320 1,262 44 -14 18 -7 54 8 1 2 7
B-30 48 10.42 35.92 1,150 0 1,334 1,281 43 -13 16 -6 50 7 2 2 8
B-31 48 10.42 35.92 1,130 0 1,346 1,298 44 -12 14 -5 47 7 2 2 10
B-32 48 10.42 35.92 1,103 0 1,356 1,311 45 -13 15 -6 45 7 2 2 11
STRUCTURE
234
Bridge – Cable Plane B
LOADS (Kips) STRESSES (KSI)

1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
B-1 1435 1424 1438 1448 1411 1452 138 139 I 1.9
B-2 1430 1419 1434 1438 1401 1442 137 138 I 1.9
B-3 1430 1420 1434 1433 1394 1436 137 138 I 1.8
B-4 1434 1427 1438 1440 1401 1444 138 139 I 1.9
B-5 1423 1419 1428 1436 1395 1440 137 138 I 2.0
B-6 1425 1425 1430 1446 1403 1452 137 139 I 2.2
B-7 1403 1409 1409 1436 1390 1442 135 138 I 2.5
B-8 1366 1379 1375 1414 1364 1423 131 137 I 2.7
B-9 1521 1593 1531 1573 1540 1583 146 153 I 3.4
B-10 1510 1578 1518 1547 1510 1555 145 152 I 3.4
B-11 1502 1568 1510 1528 1487 1535 144 151 I 3.3
B-12 1496 1560 1504 1513 1469 1520 144 150 I 3.3
B-13 1492 1555 1500 1502 1457 1509 143 149 I 3.3
B-14 1474 1534 1480 1478 1432 1485 141 147 I 3.2
B-15 1462 1521 1469 1471 1425 1478 140 146 I 3.1
B-16 1454 1511 1461 1466 1420 1473 140 145 I 3.0
B-17 1454 1520 1463 1459 1402 1468 140 146 I 3.9
B-18 1463 1531 1473 1468 1409 1478 140 147 I 4.0
B-19 1465 1534 1475 1470 1409 1480 141 147 I 4.1
B-20 1470 1540 1480 1476 1413 1486 141 148 I 4.2
B-21 1473 1544 1484 1480 1415 1491 141 148 I 4.4
B-22 1482 1553 1493 1489 1423 1500 142 149 I 4.5
B-23 1479 1550 1491 1488 1420 1499 142 149 I 4.7
B-24 1481 1552 1493 1491 1421 1503 142 149 I 4.9
B-25 1247 1278 1255 1249 1205 1256 120 123 I 3.8
B-26 1283 1307 1289 1286 1244 1292 123 125 I 3.4
B-27 1308 1327 1314 1313 1274 1319 126 127 I 3.0
B-28 1351 1366 1356 1357 1320 1362 130 131 I 2.7
B-29 1364 1374 1369 1371 1335 1376 131 132 I 2.4
B-30 1377 1383 1383 1386 1349 1391 132 134 I 2.1
B-31 1390 1393 1396 1400 1363 1405 133 135 I 1.9
B-32 1401 1401 1407 1412 1373 1418 135 136 I 1.9
235
Table B-5: Unfactored Cable Forces for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane C
CABLES LOADS (KIPS)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
C-1 48 10.42 35.92 1,093 1,412 1,417 1,454 43 -11 15 -5 31 20 1 1 11
C-2 48 10.42 35.92 1,127 1,418 1,421 1,455 42 -10 14 -5 31 20 1 1 5
C-3 48 10.42 35.92 1,162 1,427 1,427 1,459 43 -10 14 -6 32 21 1 1 9
C-4 48 10.42 35.92 1,181 1,432 1,430 1,459 45 -10 14 -6 36 23 1 1 15
C-5 48 10.42 35.92 1,190 1,431 1,426 1,454 47 -11 15 -6 42 27 1 1 22
C-6 48 10.42 35.92 1,276 1,440 1,432 1,458 50 -12 16 -7 49 32 1 2 31
C-7 48 10.42 35.92 1,281 1,437 1,427 1,451 55 -14 18 -7 59 38 2 2 44
C-8 48 10.42 35.92 1,231 1,428 1,416 1,441 61 -17 20 -8 71 46 3 3 60
C-9 48 10.42 35.92 1,567 1,430 1,427 1,359 54 -31 23 -13 121 79 2 2 58
C-10 48 10.42 35.92 1,499 1,407 1,403 1,340 58 -27 24 -12 121 79 1 2 43
C-11 48 10.42 35.92 1,428 1,387 1,381 1,321 61 -25 25 -11 122 79 1 1 32
C-12 48 10.42 35.92 1,400 1,425 1,416 1,359 64 -23 25 -10 123 80 1 1 23
C-13 48 10.42 35.92 1,333 1,416 1,405 1,348 65 -22 25 -9 123 80 1 1 16
C-14 48 10.42 35.92 1,274 1,416 1,401 1,345 65 -21 25 -8 122 79 1 1 10
C-15 48 10.42 35.92 1,220 1,412 1,395 1,338 65 -20 25 -8 121 78 1 1 5
C-16 48 10.42 35.92 1,173 1,408 1,388 1,330 64 -19 25 -7 118 77 1 1 8
C-17 48 10.42 35.92 1,165 1,406 1,363 1,330 78 -35 29 -12 139 91 1 2 10
C-18 48 10.42 35.92 1,207 1,406 1,367 1,335 81 -36 30 -12 144 93 1 2 10
C-19 48 10.42 35.92 1,257 1,409 1,374 1,343 84 -37 30 -12 148 96 1 2 10
236
C-20 48 10.42 35.92 1,316 1,413 1,382 1,352 87 -38 31 -13 152 98 2 2 10
C-21 48 10.42 35.92 1,375 1,419 1,391 1,361 89 -39 32 -14 155 101 2 2 11
C-22 48 10.42 35.92 1,416 1,419 1,395 1,364 91 -41 32 -15 158 103 2 2 12
C-23 48 10.42 35.92 1,467 1,416 1,395 1,363 93 -43 33 -16 161 104 2 2 13
C-24 48 10.42 35.92 1,517 1,419 1,400 1,365 96 -46 33 -18 164 106 2 3 14
C-25 48 10.42 35.92 1,183 1,290 1,294 1,285 56 -36 26 -13 86 56 2 2 2
C-26 48 10.42 35.92 1,251 1,311 1,318 1,312 52 -28 23 -11 76 49 2 2 1
C-27 48 10.42 35.92 1,265 1,331 1,341 1,339 48 -22 21 -9 67 44 1 2 3
C-28 48 10.42 35.92 1,205 1,368 1,382 1,383 45 -16 19 -8 60 39 1 2 5
C-29 48 10.42 35.92 1,216 1,400 1,417 1,421 44 -13 17 -6 54 35 1 2 6
C-30 48 10.42 35.92 1,198 1,406 1,427 1,434 44 -12 15 -6 50 33 2 2 8
C-31 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 1,419 1,443 1,452 45 -12 14 -5 48 31 2 2 10
C-32 48 10.42 35.92 1,129 1,415 1,442 1,454 47 -13 15 -6 47 31 2 2 12
STRUCTURE
236
Bridge – Cable Plane C
LOADS (KIPS) STRESSES (KSI)

1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
C-1 1,497 1,485 1,505 1,508 1,485 1,516 144 146 I 1.9
C-2 1,498 1,486 1,506 1,503 1,480 1,511 144 145 I 1.9
C-3 1,503 1,492 1,511 1,511 1,489 1,520 144 146 I 1.9
C-4 1,504 1,495 1,513 1,518 1,497 1,528 144 147 I 1.9
C-5 1,501 1,495 1,511 1,523 1,503 1,533 144 147 I 2.0
C-6 1,508 1,507 1,521 1,539 1,521 1,552 145 149 I 2.2
C-7 1,506 1,510 1,522 1,550 1,533 1,565 145 150 I 2.5
C-8 1,502 1,512 1,521 1,562 1,547 1,581 144 152 I 2.7
C-9 1,484 1,551 1,512 1,542 1,567 1,570 142 151 I 3.5
C-10 1,465 1,529 1,492 1,508 1,530 1,535 141 147 I 3.5
C-11 1,448 1,510 1,475 1,481 1,499 1,507 139 145 I 3.4
C-12 1,489 1,548 1,515 1,512 1,529 1,538 143 149 I 3.4
C-13 1,481 1,539 1,507 1,498 1,513 1,523 142 148 I 3.3
C-14 1,481 1,538 1,507 1,491 1,506 1,517 142 148 I 3.2
C-15 1,477 1,533 1,503 1,482 1,496 1,508 142 147 I 3.1
C-16 1,472 1,527 1,498 1,480 1,493 1,506 141 147 I 3.0
C-17 1,484 1,545 1,514 1,494 1,506 1,524 142 148 I 4.0
C-18 1,487 1,550 1,518 1,497 1,509 1,528 143 149 I 4.0
C-19 1,493 1,557 1,525 1,503 1,515 1,535 143 149 I 4.1
C-20 1,500 1,565 1,533 1,510 1,522 1,543 144 150 I 4.2
C-21 1,508 1,574 1,542 1,519 1,531 1,553 145 151 I 4.4
C-22 1,510 1,577 1,545 1,522 1,533 1,557 145 151 I 4.5
C-23 1,510 1,577 1,545 1,522 1,533 1,558 145 151 I 4.7
C-24 1,514 1,582 1,551 1,528 1,539 1,565 145 152 I 4.9
C-25 1,350 1,380 1,371 1,352 1,352 1,373 130 132 I 3.7
C-26 1,370 1,394 1,388 1,371 1,368 1,389 132 134 I 3.3
C-27 1,389 1,408 1,406 1,392 1,387 1,408 133 135 I 2.9
C-28 1,428 1,443 1,442 1,432 1,426 1,447 137 139 I 2.6
C-29 1,465 1,475 1,479 1,471 1,463 1,485 141 143 I 2.3
C-30 1,478 1,484 1,491 1,486 1,474 1,499 142 144 I 2.0
C-31 1,497 1,500 1,510 1,507 1,493 1,520 144 146 I 1.9
C-32 1,501 1,501 1,514 1,513 1,497 1,526 144 147 I 2.0
237
Table B-7: Unfactored Cable Forces for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane D
CABLES LOADS (KIPS)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
D-1 48 10.42 35.92 1,093 1,404 1,388 1,376 39 -8 14 -4 54 35 0 0 19
D-2 48 10.42 35.92 1,127 1,411 1,392 1,376 38 -6 13 -3 51 33 0 0 13
D-3 48 10.42 35.92 1,162 1,422 1,399 1,379 37 -5 13 -2 49 32 1 1 12
D-4 48 10.42 35.92 1,181 1,429 1,402 1,378 38 -4 12 -2 48 31 1 1 19
D-5 48 10.42 35.92 1,190 1,431 1,399 1,371 40 -5 12 -2 49 32 1 1 27
D-6 48 10.42 35.92 1,276 1,442 1,405 1,372 42 -5 13 -3 53 34 2 2 37
D-7 48 10.42 35.92 1,281 1,442 1,401 1,361 46 -6 14 -3 60 39 2 3 51
D-8 48 10.42 35.92 1,231 1,438 1,391 1,345 51 -8 15 -4 72 47 3 3 68
D-9 48 10.42 35.92 1,567 1,431 1,426 1,419 25 -7 11 -3 64 42 2 3 68
D-10 48 10.42 35.92 1,499 1,406 1,402 1,395 31 -4 13 -3 64 41 1 2 51
D-11 48 10.42 35.92 1,428 1,384 1,379 1,373 37 -4 14 -2 66 43 1 1 38
D-12 48 10.42 35.92 1,400 1,420 1,414 1,408 42 -4 15 -2 69 45 0 0 28
D-13 48 10.42 35.92 1,333 1,410 1,402 1,394 46 -5 17 -2 72 47 0 0 20
D-14 48 10.42 35.92 1,274 1,408 1,398 1,389 48 -6 17 -2 73 47 0 0 13
D-15 48 10.42 35.92 1,220 1,403 1,391 1,380 50 -6 18 -3 73 48 1 1 9
D-16 48 10.42 35.92 1,173 1,399 1,383 1,371 50 -6 18 -3 73 47 1 1 13
D-17 48 10.42 35.92 1,165 1,398 1,376 1,361 54 -7 19 -3 79 51 1 1 12
D-18 48 10.42 35.92 1,207 1,399 1,380 1,367 57 -8 20 -3 82 54 1 1 12
D-19 48 10.42 35.92 1,257 1,403 1,388 1,375 59 -9 21 -3 85 55 1 1 12
D-20 48 10.42 35.92 1,316 1,409 1,397 1,385 62 -10 22 -4 87 57 0 1 12
D-21 48 10.42 35.92 1,375 1,417 1,407 1,396 64 -12 22 -5 88 57 0 0 13
238
D-22 48 10.42 35.92 1,416 1,420 1,412 1,401 66 -14 23 -6 88 57 0 0 13
D-23 48 10.42 35.92 1,467 1,419 1,414 1,402 68 -16 24 -7 88 57 0 0 14
D-24 48 10.42 35.92 1,517 1,424 1,419 1,407 70 -19 25 -9 86 56 0 0 15
D-25 48 10.42 35.92 1,183 1,290 1,244 1,203 25 -12 14 -6 34 22 1 1 0
D-26 48 10.42 35.92 1,251 1,309 1,270 1,234 23 -7 12 -4 34 22 1 1 2
D-27 48 10.42 35.92 1,265 1,326 1,293 1,262 24 -5 11 -3 35 23 1 1 5
D-28 48 10.42 35.92 1,205 1,362 1,334 1,308 25 -4 9 -2 37 24 1 1 7
D-29 48 10.42 35.92 1,216 1,391 1,369 1,346 26 -3 7 -2 41 27 1 2 9
D-30 48 10.42 35.92 1,198 1,396 1,378 1,359 29 -4 9 -2 46 30 2 2 11
D-31 48 10.42 35.92 1,172 1,407 1,393 1,378 31 -5 10 -2 51 33 2 2 13
D-32 48 10.42 35.92 1,129 1,402 1,392 1,380 35 -7 12 -3 56 37 2 2 14
STRUCTURE
238
Bridge – Cable Plane D
LOADS (KIPS) STRESSES (KSI)

1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
D-1 1,443 1,458 1,454 1,461 1,458 1,472 139 141 I 1.7
D-2 1,449 1,462 1,460 1,462 1,458 1,473 139 141 I 1.5
D-3 1,460 1,471 1,470 1,472 1,466 1,483 140 142 I 1.4
D-4 1,467 1,477 1,478 1,486 1,479 1,497 141 144 I 1.4
D-5 1,470 1,480 1,483 1,497 1,490 1,509 141 145 I 1.4
D-6 1,484 1,495 1,498 1,521 1,513 1,535 142 147 I 1.5
D-7 1,488 1,502 1,504 1,538 1,532 1,555 143 149 I 1.6
D-8 1,489 1,510 1,509 1,557 1,553 1,577 143 151 I 1.9
D-9 1,456 1,495 1,473 1,523 1,540 1,541 140 148 I 1.3
D-10 1,437 1,470 1,453 1,488 1,498 1,504 138 144 I 1.4
D-11 1,421 1,450 1,436 1,459 1,465 1,474 136 142 I 1.5
D-12 1,462 1,490 1,476 1,490 1,493 1,505 140 144 I 1.7
D-13 1,455 1,481 1,470 1,475 1,476 1,490 140 143 I 1.8
D-14 1,456 1,481 1,471 1,469 1,468 1,484 140 142 I 1.9
D-15 1,453 1,476 1,468 1,462 1,460 1,477 139 142 I 2.0
D-16 1,449 1,471 1,465 1,461 1,458 1,477 139 142 I 2.0
D-17 1,451 1,477 1,468 1,463 1,461 1,480 139 142 I 2.2
D-18 1,455 1,481 1,473 1,467 1,464 1,485 140 143 I 2.3
D-19 1,462 1,488 1,480 1,474 1,470 1,492 140 143 I 2.3
D-20 1,471 1,496 1,489 1,483 1,478 1,501 141 144 I 2.4
D-21 1,481 1,505 1,499 1,494 1,487 1,512 142 145 I 2.6
D-22 1,486 1,508 1,504 1,499 1,490 1,517 143 146 I 2.8
D-23 1,487 1,507 1,505 1,501 1,490 1,519 143 146 I 3.0
D-24 1,494 1,510 1,511 1,509 1,495 1,526 143 147 I 3.2
D-25 1,315 1,324 1,323 1,315 1,313 1,323 126 127 I 2.0
D-26 1,332 1,342 1,341 1,334 1,333 1,343 128 129 I 1.6
D-27 1,350 1,361 1,359 1,354 1,353 1,364 130 131 I 1.3
D-28 1,387 1,399 1,397 1,394 1,393 1,404 133 135 I 1.0
D-29 1,418 1,433 1,429 1,427 1,427 1,438 136 138 I 0.9
D-30 1,425 1,442 1,438 1,436 1,437 1,448 137 139 I 1.0
D-31 1,439 1,458 1,452 1,451 1,453 1,465 138 141 I 1.2
D-32 1,437 1,459 1,452 1,452 1,453 1,466 138 141 I 1.4
239
Table B-9: Factored Load Groups, Phi Factors and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane A
FACTORED LRFD LOAD GROUPS (Kips) PHI FACTOR CALCULATION STRESSES (KSI)
CABLE LL+W LL+W/MUTS Phi STATIC STATIC Factored FATIGUE
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV GROUP V
NUMBER Stress (KSI) Factor GROUP I GRP II to VI Resistance TRUCKS
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
A-1 1864 N/A 1879 N/A 1872 4.95 0.018 0.763 179 180 206 1.8
A-2 1849 N/A 1860 N/A 1856 4.77 0.018 0.765 178 179 206 1.7
A-3 1848 N/A 1855 N/A 1854 4.66 0.017 0.765 177 178 207 1.5
A-4 1852 N/A 1855 N/A 1857 4.67 0.017 0.765 178 178 207 1.5
A-5 1844 N/A 1844 N/A 1848 4.79 0.018 0.764 177 177 206 1.5
A-6 1884 N/A 1883 N/A 1889 5.04 0.019 0.763 181 181 206 1.6
A-7 1887 N/A 1886 N/A 1892 5.44 0.020 0.760 181 182 205 1.7
A-8 1897 N/A 1899 N/A 1903 6.05 0.022 0.755 182 183 204 1.9
A-9 1867 N/A 1912 N/A 1883 3.87 0.014 0.771 179 184 208 1.6
A-10 1861 N/A 1899 N/A 1875 4.43 0.016 0.767 179 182 207 1.6
A-11 1859 N/A 1893 N/A 1873 4.96 0.018 0.763 179 182 206 1.7
240
A-12 1850 N/A 1881 N/A 1863 5.40 0.020 0.760 178 181 205 1.8
A-13 1854 N/A 1881 N/A 1866 5.73 0.021 0.758 178 181 205 1.9
A-14 1832 N/A 1856 N/A 1844 5.92 0.022 0.756 176 178 204 2.0
A-15 1824 N/A 1844 N/A 1835 6.00 0.022 0.756 175 177 204 2.0
A-16 1827 N/A 1844 N/A 1837 5.97 0.022 0.756 175 177 204 2.1
A-17 1820 N/A 1848 N/A 1833 6.35 0.024 0.753 175 177 203 2.2
A-18 1830 N/A 1858 N/A 1844 6.71 0.025 0.750 176 178 203 2.3
A-19 1832 N/A 1860 N/A 1846 7.05 0.026 0.748 176 179 202 2.4
A-20 1843 N/A 1869 N/A 1857 7.36 0.027 0.745 177 179 201 2.5
A-21 1845 N/A 1870 N/A 1859 7.64 0.028 0.743 177 180 201 2.6
A-22 1856 N/A 1878 N/A 1869 7.87 0.029 0.742 178 180 200 2.8
A-23 1853 N/A 1872 N/A 1865 8.08 0.030 0.740 178 180 200 3.0
A-24 1856 N/A 1870 N/A 1867 8.26 0.031 0.739 178 180 199 3.2
A-25 1642 N/A 1650 N/A 1647 3.01 0.011 0.778 158 158 210 1.9
A-26 1664 N/A 1670 N/A 1668 3.02 0.011 0.778 160 160 210 1.5
A-27 1692 N/A 1698 N/A 1696 3.11 0.012 0.777 162 163 210 1.2
A-28 1718 N/A 1726 N/A 1723 3.26 0.012 0.776 165 166 209 1.0
A-29 1744 N/A 1754 N/A 1750 3.51 0.013 0.774 167 168 209 1.0
A-30 1773 N/A 1785 N/A 1780 3.83 0.014 0.772 170 171 208 1.2
A-31 1797 N/A 1811 N/A 1805 4.19 0.016 0.769 173 174 208 1.4
A-32 1816 N/A 1831 N/A 1825 4.66 0.017 0.766 174 176 207 1.6
240
Table B-10: Factored Load Groups, Phi Factors and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane B
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
B-1 1833 N/A 1801 N/A 1828 4.49 0.017 0.767 176 176 207 1.9
B-2 1821 N/A 1788 N/A 1816 4.48 0.017 0.767 175 174 207 1.9
B-3 1814 N/A 1783 N/A 1810 4.59 0.017 0.766 174 174 207 1.8
B-4 1824 N/A 1795 N/A 1820 4.79 0.018 0.765 175 175 206 1.9
B-5 1820 N/A 1795 N/A 1818 5.11 0.019 0.762 175 175 206 2.0
B-6 1835 N/A 1815 N/A 1835 5.56 0.021 0.759 176 176 205 2.2
B-7 1824 N/A 1810 N/A 1826 6.13 0.023 0.755 175 175 204 2.5
B-8 1801 N/A 1793 N/A 1805 6.90 0.026 0.749 173 173 202 2.7
B-9 1993 N/A 2072 N/A 2021 6.58 0.024 0.751 191 199 203 3.4
B-10 1962 N/A 2036 N/A 1989 7.00 0.026 0.748 188 195 202 3.4
B-11 1940 N/A 2009 N/A 1965 7.36 0.027 0.745 186 193 201 3.3
B-12 1923 N/A 1988 N/A 1948 7.66 0.028 0.743 185 191 201 3.3
B-13 1910 N/A 1973 N/A 1934 7.83 0.029 0.742 183 189 200 3.3
241
B-14 1880 N/A 1941 N/A 1904 7.90 0.029 0.741 181 186 200 3.2
B-15 1871 N/A 1930 N/A 1895 7.87 0.029 0.742 180 185 200 3.1
B-16 1865 N/A 1922 N/A 1888 7.75 0.029 0.743 179 184 200 3.0
B-17 1865 N/A 1928 N/A 1891 9.54 0.035 0.729 179 185 197 3.9
B-18 1878 N/A 1942 N/A 1905 9.87 0.037 0.727 180 186 196 4.0
B-19 1882 N/A 1947 N/A 1909 10.17 0.038 0.725 181 187 196 4.1
B-20 1891 N/A 1956 N/A 1918 10.43 0.039 0.723 182 188 195 4.2
B-21 1897 N/A 1962 N/A 1925 10.67 0.040 0.721 182 188 195 4.4
B-22 1910 N/A 1974 N/A 1938 10.89 0.040 0.719 183 190 194 4.5
B-23 1909 N/A 1973 N/A 1937 11.10 0.041 0.718 183 189 194 4.7
B-24 1915 N/A 1977 N/A 1942 11.33 0.042 0.716 184 190 193 4.9
B-25 1593 N/A 1611 N/A 1604 6.65 0.025 0.751 153 155 203 3.8
B-26 1636 N/A 1648 N/A 1645 6.15 0.023 0.754 157 158 204 3.4
B-27 1668 N/A 1675 N/A 1675 5.68 0.021 0.758 160 161 205 3.0
B-28 1721 N/A 1723 N/A 1727 5.23 0.019 0.761 165 166 206 2.7
B-29 1738 N/A 1735 N/A 1742 4.94 0.018 0.763 167 167 206 2.4
B-30 1756 N/A 1747 N/A 1758 4.86 0.018 0.764 169 169 206 2.1
B-31 1775 N/A 1760 N/A 1775 4.86 0.018 0.764 170 170 206 1.9
B-32 1791 N/A 1771 N/A 1790 4.99 0.018 0.763 172 172 206 1.9
241
Table B-11: Factored Load Groups, Phi Factors and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane C
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
C-1 1908 N/A 1874 N/A 1902 6.01 0.022 0.755 183 183 204 1.9
C-2 1902 N/A 1868 N/A 1896 5.97 0.022 0.756 183 182 204 1.9
C-3 1912 N/A 1880 N/A 1907 6.15 0.023 0.754 184 183 204 1.9
C-4 1922 N/A 1892 N/A 1918 6.52 0.024 0.752 185 184 203 1.9
C-5 1928 N/A 1902 N/A 1926 7.11 0.026 0.747 185 185 202 2.0
C-6 1951 N/A 1929 N/A 1950 7.91 0.029 0.741 187 187 200 2.2
C-7 1966 N/A 1949 N/A 1967 8.94 0.033 0.734 189 189 198 2.5
C-8 1985 N/A 1973 N/A 1988 10.28 0.038 0.724 191 191 195 2.7
C-9 1955 N/A 2026 N/A 1981 12.69 0.047 0.706 188 195 191 3.5
C-10 1915 N/A 1981 N/A 1940 13.10 0.049 0.703 184 190 190 3.5
C-11 1882 N/A 1944 N/A 1906 13.48 0.050 0.700 181 187 189 3.4
C-12 1923 N/A 1982 N/A 1946 13.77 0.051 0.698 185 190 188 3.4
242
C-13 1905 N/A 1962 N/A 1928 13.91 0.052 0.697 183 188 188 3.3
C-14 1898 N/A 1953 N/A 1920 13.90 0.051 0.697 182 188 188 3.2
C-15 1887 N/A 1941 N/A 1909 13.77 0.051 0.698 181 186 188 3.1
C-16 1884 N/A 1936 N/A 1905 13.50 0.050 0.700 181 186 189 3.0
C-17 1909 N/A 1964 N/A 1932 16.20 0.060 0.680 183 189 184 4.0
C-18 1914 N/A 1971 N/A 1939 16.77 0.062 0.676 184 189 182 4.0
C-19 1923 N/A 1980 N/A 1948 17.29 0.064 0.672 185 190 181 4.1
C-20 1934 N/A 1992 N/A 1959 17.76 0.066 0.668 186 191 180 4.2
C-21 1946 N/A 2004 N/A 1971 18.18 0.067 0.665 187 192 180 4.4
C-22 1951 N/A 2009 N/A 1977 18.58 0.069 0.662 187 193 179 4.5
C-23 1953 N/A 2011 N/A 1979 18.97 0.070 0.659 187 193 178 4.7
C-24 1962 N/A 2019 N/A 1988 19.39 0.072 0.656 188 194 177 4.9
C-25 1722 N/A 1741 N/A 1733 10.78 0.040 0.720 165 167 194 3.7
C-26 1743 N/A 1755 N/A 1752 9.76 0.036 0.728 167 168 196 3.3
C-27 1767 N/A 1774 N/A 1774 8.86 0.033 0.734 170 170 198 2.9
C-28 1815 N/A 1818 N/A 1821 8.08 0.030 0.740 174 175 200 2.6
C-29 1864 N/A 1860 N/A 1867 7.60 0.028 0.744 179 179 201 2.3
C-30 1882 N/A 1872 N/A 1884 7.36 0.027 0.746 181 181 201 2.0
C-31 1909 N/A 1894 N/A 1909 7.28 0.027 0.746 183 183 201 1.9
C-32 1918 N/A 1898 N/A 1917 7.43 0.028 0.745 184 184 201 2.0
242
Table B-12: Factored Load Groups, Phi Factors and Stresses for Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge – Cable Plane D
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
D-1 1846 N/A 1853 N/A 1852 7.12 0.026 0.747 177 178 202 1.7
D-2 1847 N/A 1851 N/A 1852 6.82 0.025 0.749 177 178 202 1.5
D-3 1859 N/A 1861 N/A 1863 6.65 0.025 0.751 178 179 203 1.4
D-4 1877 N/A 1876 N/A 1880 6.66 0.025 0.751 180 181 203 1.4
D-5 1893 N/A 1890 N/A 1896 6.88 0.025 0.749 182 182 202 1.4
D-6 1924 N/A 1921 N/A 1927 7.35 0.027 0.746 185 185 201 1.5
D-7 1948 N/A 1948 N/A 1953 8.13 0.030 0.740 187 187 200 1.6
D-8 1975 N/A 1980 N/A 1982 9.36 0.035 0.731 190 190 197 1.9
D-9 1918 N/A 1959 N/A 1933 6.39 0.024 0.753 184 188 203 1.3
D-10 1876 N/A 1908 N/A 1889 6.96 0.026 0.748 180 183 202 1.4
D-11 1842 N/A 1869 N/A 1854 7.67 0.028 0.743 177 179 201 1.5
D-12 1883 N/A 1906 N/A 1894 8.33 0.031 0.738 181 183 199 1.7
243
D-13 1866 N/A 1886 N/A 1877 8.86 0.033 0.734 179 181 198 1.8
D-14 1861 N/A 1878 N/A 1870 9.19 0.034 0.732 179 180 198 1.9
D-15 1853 N/A 1867 N/A 1862 9.34 0.035 0.731 178 179 197 2.0
D-16 1853 N/A 1865 N/A 1861 9.34 0.035 0.731 178 179 197 2.0
D-17 1857 N/A 1872 N/A 1866 10.09 0.037 0.725 178 180 196 2.2
D-18 1863 N/A 1878 N/A 1873 10.58 0.039 0.722 179 180 195 2.3
D-19 1873 N/A 1887 N/A 1883 11.01 0.041 0.718 180 181 194 2.3
D-20 1885 N/A 1898 N/A 1895 11.37 0.042 0.716 181 182 193 2.4
D-21 1899 N/A 1910 N/A 1909 11.66 0.043 0.714 182 183 193 2.6
D-22 1907 N/A 1914 N/A 1916 11.87 0.044 0.712 183 184 192 2.8
D-23 1911 N/A 1914 N/A 1918 12.00 0.044 0.711 183 184 192 3.0
D-24 1921 N/A 1919 N/A 1927 12.07 0.045 0.711 184 185 192 3.2
D-25 1657 N/A 1661 N/A 1661 4.48 0.017 0.767 159 159 207 2.0
D-26 1682 N/A 1686 N/A 1685 4.36 0.016 0.768 161 162 207 1.6
D-27 1707 N/A 1712 N/A 1711 4.49 0.017 0.767 164 164 207 1.3
D-28 1757 N/A 1763 N/A 1761 4.75 0.018 0.765 169 169 207 1.0
D-29 1799 N/A 1807 N/A 1804 5.11 0.019 0.762 173 174 206 0.9
D-30 1812 N/A 1822 N/A 1818 5.63 0.021 0.758 174 175 205 1.0
D-31 1832 N/A 1845 N/A 1839 6.19 0.023 0.754 176 177 204 1.2
D-32 1835 N/A 1849 N/A 1843 6.85 0.025 0.749 176 178 202 1.4
243
Key for Tables B-9 through B-12
18 GROUP I = 1.25DL + 1.75( LL + I )
19 NOT APPLICABLE: OWNER DEFINED VEHICLES
20 GROUP III = 1.25DL + 0.4 ( W1 ) + 1.2 T
21 NOT APPLICABLE: SPECIAL CASE FOR HIGH DL/LL RATIOS
22 GROUP V = 1.25DL + 1.35(LL+I)+0.4W1 + 1.2T
23 UNFACTORED LL + W2
24 (UNFACTORED LL + W2) / MUTS
25 PHI FACTOR (FROM FIGURE 4-5)
26
AND MAXIMUM STATIC STRESSES: 18 TO 22 / 3
27 PERMISSIBLE STATIC STRESSES (fs):
28 FACTORED RESISTANCE 25 * 270 KSI
29 MAXIMUM FATIGUE STRESSES PERMISSIBLE FATIGUE STRESS RANGE (fsr): 9.57 KSI
244
Appendix C:
3rd Party Authorizations
Referenced Item 3rd Party Authorization Reference
Figure 1-1 Figure C-1: Exhibit A
Figure 1-7 Figure C-2: Exhibit B
Figure 1-8 Figure C-3: Exhibit C
Figure 1-13 Figure C-4: Exhibit D
Figure 1-15 Figure C-5: Exhibit E
Figure 2-1 Figure C-6: Exhibit F
Figure 2-9 Figure C-6: Exhibit F
Figure 3-4 Figure C-7: Exhibit G
Figure 3-5 Figure C-8: Exhibit H
Figure 3-22 Figure C-3: Exhibit C
Figure 3-25 Figure C-9: Exhibit I
Figure 4-9 Figure C-10: Exhibit J
Chapter 5* Figure C-10: Exhibit J
Figure 5-22 Figure C-11: Exhibit K
*General information on the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
245
Appendix C (Continued)
Figure C-1: Exhibit A
246
Figure C-2: Exhibit B
247
Figure C-3: Exhibit C
248
Figure C-4: Exhibit D
249
Figure C-5: Exhibit E
250
Figure C-6: Exhibit F
251
Figure C-7: Exhibit G
252
Figure C-8: Exhibit H
253
Figure C-9: Exhibit I
See Next Page
254
Figure C-9: Exhibit I (Continued)
255
Figure C-10: Exhibit J
256
Figure C-10: Exhibit J (Continued)
257
Figure C-10: Exhibit J (Continued)
258
Figure C-11: Exhibit K
259
About the Author
Steven L. Stroh is an accomplished bridge designer with more than 35 years
devoted exclusively to bridge design as a consulting engineer. He has worked on the
design of more than 20 cable-stayed bridges, including such landmark structures as the
Kap Shui Mun Bridge in Hong Kong and the Fred Hartman Bridge in Baytown, Texas.
He has the distinction of serving as the lead designer and Engineer of Record for the first
extradosed bridge to be designed in the United States, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge.
He was honored in 2006 by the American Segmental Bridge Institute with their
Leadership Award for outstanding contributions to the design and use of concrete
segmental and extradosed bridges.

Extra Dosed Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extra Dosed Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extra Dosed Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of South Florida

On The Development Of The Extradosed Bridge

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Scholar Commons Citation

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

Major Professor: Rajan Sen, Ph.D.

Keywords: Prestressed Concrete, External Prestress, Stay Cable, Fatigue, Aesthetics

Copyright © 2012, Steven L. Stroh

support, reassurance, inspiration, motivation, encouragement, patience and has been my

constant partner in the long adventure of completing this work.

Japanese Extradosed Bridges attended by the author in 2001.

the Connecticut Department of Transportation for permitting that information to be

analyze this bridge.

As with many large infrastructure construction projects, the design and

confidence that this dissertation would be eventually completed.

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. xii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Representative Extradosed Bridges ................................................................. 19

Chapter 3: Extradosed Bridge Design Parameters, Characteristics And Features ............ 71

Chapter 4: Stay Cable Design Issues ............................................................................... 115

Chapter 5: Prototype Design ........................................................................................... 153

Chapter 6: Conclusions And Recommendations ............................................................. 196

References ............................................................................................................... 213

Appendices ................................................................................................................. 221

About The Author .................................................................................................. End Page

Table 1-1: Extradosed Highway Bridges Worldwide ..................................................... 12

Table 2-1: Project Data For Odawara Port Bridge .......................................................... 30

Table 2-2: Project Data For Shinkawa River Bridge ...................................................... 36

Table 2-3: Project Data For Miyakodagawa Bridge ....................................................... 43

Table 2-4: Project Data For Kiso River Bridge ............................................................... 51

Table 2-5: Project Data For Ibi River Bridge .................................................................. 53

Table 2-6: Project Data For Okuyama Bridge ................................................................. 60

Table 2-7: Project Data For Tsukuhara Bridge ............................................................... 67

Table A-1: Database Of Existing Extradosed Bridge Proportioning And Design

Figure 1-4: Arch Terminology .......................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-5: Bridge Terminology ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-6: Span Range For Common Bridge Types ........................................................ 6

Figure 1-7: Barton Creek Fin-Back Bridge ....................................................................... 7

Figure 1-8: Ganter Bridge, Switzerland ............................................................................ 7

Figure 1-11: Number Of Extradosed Prestressed Highway Bridges By Country ............. 11

Figure 2-1: Bridges Visited By Delegation ..................................................................... 21

Figure 2-2: Odawara Port Bridge .................................................................................... 22

Figure 2-3: Saddle Arrangement At The Top Of Tower ................................................. 24

Figure 2-5: Typical Section ............................................................................................. 25

Figure 2-7: Color Grading Of The Stay Cable Sheathing ............................................... 28

Figure 2-8: Shinkawa River Bridge Under Construction ................................................ 31

Figure 2-9: Image Of Completed Shinkawa River Bridge .............................................. 31

Figure 2-10: Shinkawa River Bridge Elevation View ...................................................... 32

Figure 2-11: Form Traveler For Girder Casting ................................................................ 33

Figure 2-12: Girder Cross-Section .................................................................................... 33

Figure 2-13: Saddle Mock-Up ........................................................................................... 35

Figure 2-14: Mock-Up Of Stay Cable Anchorage ............................................................ 35

Figure 2-15: Miyakodagawa Bridge.................................................................................. 37

Figure 2-16: Miyakodagawa Bridge Elevation View........................................................ 38

Figure 2-17: Typical Section ............................................................................................. 39

Figure 2-18: Completed Towers........................................................................................ 40

Figure 2-19: Ibi River Bridge (Kiso Bridge Similar) ........................................................ 44

Figure 2-20: Hybrid Span Layout ..................................................................................... 45