11th International Conference on Short and

Medium Span Bridges

Toronto, Ontario, Canada
July 19 – 22, 2022

MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF A POST-TENSIONED STRADDLE BENT

INTEGRAL WITH A MULTI-SPAN LIGHT RAIL BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE
Author Mukendi, Pierre-Luabeya1, Martyn, Ashton 2, Manuel, Juan3, and Mansfield,
Maurice 4
1 WSP, Canada
[email protected]
2 WSP, Canada
[email protected]
3 WSP, Canada
[email protected]
4 WSP, Canada
[email protected]

Abstract: This article presents the strict geometry criteria and bridge articulation requirements guided
design of a new, highly skewed, horizontally curved light rail transit bridge over an important urban highway.
This included maximizing vertical and horizontal clearance under the bridge while minimizing the depth of
the combined pier cap-superstructure to minimize the rail approach grades for rolling stock. Several
solutions were studied with economic and constructability influences factoring in the selection of a phased
post-tensioned straddle bent integral with the continuous multi-span superstructure to meet project
constraints. Additional global bridge articulation requirements added complexity to the geometry restrictions
as the straddle bent comprises one of two fixed longitudinal support lines along the bridge. As one of two
longitudinal restraints, the straddle bent was evaluated for seismic, thermal and direct-fixation rail effects in
addition to gravity loads. This led to the development of a unique cast-in-place steel pin detail at the straddle
bent-column interface, minimising negative moment development at the straddle bent ends over the
columns in the bridge transverse direction, while providing torsional restraint for the straddle bent and while
providing longitudinal restraint for the global bridge longitudinal behaviour. The paper aims to present the
geometry and articulation requirements in detail and the step-by-step modelling and analysis of the bridge
including images from its construction.

1 INTRODUCTION

To bring the Ottawa, Ontario Confederation Line East Light Rail Transit Extension from the north side of
Ottawa Road 174 (OR174) to the median of the highway, a new bridge called the Montreal Flyover was
designed and constructed between 2019 and 2022. The flyover structure comprises a seven-span
continuous precast slab-on-girder bridge carrying a westbound track and an eastbound track for the Light
Rail Transit (LRT) Confederation Line extension. The bridge has a curved horizontal alignment with a radius
measuring 252m and crosses over the westbound lanes of OR174 at an approximate skew angle of 18°.
The total bridge deck width measures a constant 8.2m outside-to-outside of parapet walls. The deck
includes direct fixation of Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) along the full length of the 242m long structure
when measured from centerline-to-centerline of abutments. The deck is constructed with three NU1800
precast/prestressed girders and a 225mm full-depth precast slab.

GEN089-1
Each abutment consists of a bearing seat supported on two 1200mm diameter rock socketed concrete
caissons and Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS) wall approaches. Piers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 consist of a single
1800mm diameter column with a hammerhead pier cap. Pier 2 consists of a post-tensioned straddle bent
spanning the westbound OR174 lanes supported on 2-1800mm diameter columns. Deck diaphragms are
integral with the straddle bent at pier 2 and with the pier cap at pier 4. All pier columns are founded on
2100mm diameter rock socketed concrete caissons. A concrete transition slab and ballast wall provide the
transition from the direct fixation bridge deck to the ballasted track approaches.

Figure 1: Montreal Flyover plan view – Issued for Construction December 2019

Figure 2: Montreal Flyover elevation view – Issued for Construction December 2019

Figure 3: Montreal Flyover typical section and Bridge photo taken during construction on 02-02-2022

GEN089-2
2 STRADDLE BENT NUMERICAL MODELLING AND DESIGN PROCESS

3 Selecting a straddle bent and developing details to accommodate unique requirements

A total of 10 structure alternatives1 to carry the rail line from north of the OR174 to its median were evaluated
during preliminary design. The winning concept was selected incorporating a rail alignment and structure
type that favoured aesthetics, materials, constructability, schedule and ultimately cost. The winning concept
includes a straddle bent over the OR174 westbound traffic lanes. While the use of a straddle bent itself is
not a new concept in bridge engineering practice, a unique set of geometry, behavioral and articulation
requirements led to strict section geometry, restricted post-tension tendon layout, a unique beam-column
connection detail combined with phased construction and phased post-tensioning considerations.

The flyover approaches the OR174 at a 19° skew angle. A straddle bent proved necessary to achieve
economical span lengths over the highway as mono-column pier structures on either side of the westbound
lanes was not possible. Horizontal and vertical clearance requirements as per the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation Supplement to the Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide pushed
the straddle bent columns apart to 22m centre-on-centre with the pier cap minimum clear height above
traffic lanes pushed to 4.9m. The pier cap-superstructure depth at the straddle bent was optimised to
minimise railway grades at the flyover approach structures and hence, respect project agreement criteria
regarding rolling stock grade limits and travel time between rail stations. This was achieved by side loading
the straddle bent utilising corbels or an inverted “T” beam section. Limiting the primary mode of vibration to
a minimum of 3Hz to comply with serviceability limit states for deflection under live load was an additional
constraint affecting the straddle bent section depth.

Finally, to satisfy global stability resistance criteria of the multi-span structure under seismic loads, an
integral straddle bent structure was determined necessary. This resulted in the straddle bent comprising
one of two-integral piers along the bridge attracting thermal, creep, shrinkage and Rail-Structure Interaction
(RSI) stresses.

Figure 4: Montreal Flyover straddle bent geometry (Pier 2)

To capture a unique set of geometry, behavioral and articulation requirements a comprehensive numerical
model was developed to observe behaviour and thoroughly capture results. Simplified models were also
compiled and run to test and confirm hypothesis and conclusions leading to the final design.

1
The structure alternatives are not the subject of this paper and are not presented herein.
GEN089-3
A summary of the unique straddle bent geometry and details include:

 Inverted “T” beam design utilising corbels to side load the pier cap and support two adjacent bridge
spans during construction (Figure 5a)
 Conversion of the construction “T” beam section geometry to a wide rectangular beam section for
in-service conditions as part of a phased deck construction (Figure 5a)
 Beam-column detail accommodating elastic rotation of the straddle bent under dead loads limiting
negative moment development at the straddle bent ends (transverse bridge direction) while developing
adequate torsional restraint of the straddle bent and longitudinal restraint of the bridge
(Figures 5b & 5c).
 Comprehensive PT tendon profiles and deviations to avoid conflict with the beam-column detail
(Figure 5c) and to achieve code compliant stresses in the beam sections at the different construction
stages (Figures 5d and 5e).

Figure 5a: Straddle bent section at inverted “T” beam

Figure 5b: Straddle bent section at Figure 5c: Straddle bent elevation at column-
column-beam interface beam interface

Figure 5d: Straddle bent section at PT Figure 5e: Straddle bent section
anchors between columns displaying PT
deviations/profile

During detailed design, two construction methodologies were evaluated as shown in Figures 6a and 6b.
GEN089-4
Option 1 consisted of a partial depth precast, post-tensioned straddle bent constructed at ground level.
From ground level, cranes would lift the partial depth beam in place, on top of the Pier 2 columns where
once secured a cast-in-place topping would complete the full beam section. The advantage of this option
included safety in design, permitting working from ground level to construct a partial depth beam and
permitting installation of second pour formwork, avoiding working at heights. This option also removed the
need to deviate westbound traffic of the OR174 limiting road closures. Significant crane costs ultimately
drove Option 2 to the forefront.

Option 2 incorporated a cast-in-place (CIP) option utilising shored formwork between the columns. Although
the precast option has several advantages, we opted for the cast-in-place solution. It should be noted that
both options are technically feasible, it was the project need that directed us to the CIP solution rather than
precast straddle bent solution.

Both options required two phased post-tensioning to limit section stress during phased construction
comprising girder erection followed by precast panel deck placement and finally diaphragm and deck
closure pours.

Figure 6a: Option 1 – A partial prefabricated Figure 6b: Option 2 – A full depth
straddle bent cast-in-place straddle bent

1. Numerical model for global bridge analysis

A comprehensive 3D finite-element analysis (FEA) model of the entire bridge structure was developed
using commercially available CSiBridge structural analysis and design software. The model included a
combination of frame and shell elements, bilinear hysteresis links to capture Rail-Structure Interaction (RSI)
and non-linear springs representing P-Y curves to capture Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). Linear and non-
linear analysis was performed including the incorporation of construction phasing to complete ultimate
states and serviceability limit states analysis covering construction to in-service conditions of the bridge.
Summary of global model features

 Railway members modelled with frame elements;

 Girders modelled with frame elements;
 Deck slab modelled with shell elements;
 Rail fasteners modelled as bi-linear links;
 Piers modelled with fibre hinge properties;
 Straddle bent modelled with frame elements;
 Soil modelled with discrete non-linear link elements
utilising geotechnical supplied P-Y curve properties.

Figure 7: Montreal Flyover Finite Element model

GEN089-5
1.1 Numerical Local model for design
A local 3D model of the post tensioned straddle bent was developed using another commercially available
(FEA) software called Advanced Design America (ADA). Construction staging was an important input into
the model to evaluate and capture time dependent effects. The stage construction timeline input considered
design and construction requirements by directly coordinating with the contractor and their suppliers.
Following analysis of the local model, ADA software provided displacements, stresses, reactions, section
and member resistances, and other relevant information to complete straddle bent design and detailing.
Local anchor zone and tendon deviation force checks were carried out manually according to the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) provisions and relative design literature available for post tension
structural members.

Figure 8: Layout of the straddle bent post tension tendons in ADA software

Table 1: Summary table of post tension straddle bent construction stages included in the local ADA model

Time f’c
Stage Description Load factor X (Load Case)
(Days) (MPa)
1 First pouring of SB* and start of humid cure. 0
2 End of humid cure of SB (70% humidity).
3 Wait, time-dependent effects 28 45
Application of first phase of post-tensioning. 6-27T15 0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
4 tendons: T5-T6, T3-T4, T1-T2. Symmetrical tensioning at 28 45 1 X (Prestress)
0.75fpu. 1 X D2_FIRST_POUR)
0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
Add dead loads (Girders and Diaphragm) 1 X (Prestress)
5 29 45.07
(Check corbel ULS and SLS) 1 X (D1_DECK_GIRDERS)
1 X (D2_DIAPHRAGM)
0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
6 End of humid cure (63% humidity). 29 45.07
1 X (Prestress)
Application of second phase of post-tensioning. 2-27T15 0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
7 tendons: T7&T8. Symmetrical tensioning at 0.75fpu. 30 45.13
1 X (Prestress)
Consider self-weight of the first pour concrete.
0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
1 X (Prestress)
1X
(D1_PRECAST_PANEL)
8 Add all extra dead loads (Check corbel ULS and SLS) 35 45.39 1 X (D2_HAUNCH)
1 X (D2_BARRIER)
1 X (D1_RAIL_TRACK)
1 X (D2_RAIL_PLINTH)
1 X (D2_UTILITY)
Calculation of long-term losses (Check corbel ULS and 0.8 X (Shrink/Creep)
9 27375 47.01
SLS) 1 X (Prestress)
* SB refers to straddle bent

GEN089-6
2 Supporting corbels, the inverted “T” beam design and providing deck continuity
An inverted “T” beam is side loaded and requires additional detailing and design checks as loads are applied
on the corbels in lieu of at the top of the beam. The corbels thus serve as a shallow bearing seat for the
bridge deck and require local design and detailing within the straddle bent section.

During construction, the corbels were designed to take the full girder and deck slab dead loads and defined
construction live loads. Once integral, superimposed dead loads and in-service bridge live loads on the
deck are resisted by the corbel and friction mobilized at the interface between the straddle bent vertical
faces and the new cast-in-place diaphragms and girders. To mobilize the full capacity of the bond,
reinforcement projecting normal through the contact surface was added to the straddle bent and the
concrete surfaces intentionally roughened. Since support conditions evolved with the construction stages,
the following key resistance checks were conducted at certain specific stages described at Table 2:

 Step 5: Check corbel alone under girder dead load of Girders, wet concrete diaphragm and the
construction load;
 Step 8: Check under dead loads and build load. At this stage, the diaphragm is already effective;
 Step 9: Check under all loads including live load.

Two approaches for the integral straddle bent calculation, resistance of the deck girders supports on the
straddle bent, were considered:

Approach 1 considered cumulative interface shear in function of the construction stages. Figure 9a below
highlights the different surfaces or zones activated at each construction stage. The blue area indicates the
activated shear surface at step 5 (the corbel only), the red indicates the activated shear surface added at
step 8 and in green area indicates the activated shear surface following step 9.

Figure 9a: Cumulative interface shear during Figure 9b: Extract of strut and tie model used
construction
Approach 2 was a conservative approach, considering all girder-deck loads are support solely by the corbel.
A strut-and-tie evaluation was carried in this approach to complete corbel detailing. Figure 9b above shows
an extract from the strut and tie model used for corbel dimensioning.

GIRDERS & DECK CAST

INTEGRAL WITH STRADDLE
BENT

GIRDERS SIMPLY SUPPORTED ON

STRADDLE BENT CORBEL

Figure 10: Pier 2 straddle bent change in deck support conditions during construction

GEN089-7
2.1.1 Beam-Column detail
Pier 2 was analysed as one of two integral piers along the seven-span flyover. A unique beam-column
connection was required to accommodate global bridge articulation requirements and minimise negative
bending in the straddle bent knee joint.

Figure 11: Pier 2 beam column fixity

Modelling the beam-column connection with a rigid node about the local x-axis attracted important negative
bending moments in the knee joint. A pier cap rotationally restrained in the local x-axis led to a congestion
of reinforcement and post-tensioning in the pier cap ends and heavy reinforcement ratios at top of the
column. By modelling the beam-column connection with an “elastic node” equivalent to the rotation stiffness
permitted by the dual HSS pipe detail, reduced negative bending moments at the pier cap ends were
observed. Improved reinforcement detailing in the post-tension anchor zones was possible and
reinforcement ratios in the column head remained reasonable.

Bearing supports were considered to achieve a similar effect, but in the case of the flyover torsional effects,
other secondary effects, geometry considerations (bearing seat area exceeding column area) and
increased maintenance requirements led to the final alternative detail.

Figure 12: Staged construction of straddle bent beam-column connection

For the solution retained and built (Figure 12), two HSS406X31 pipes were cast with the column. A second
pour was completed to cast the pipes with the straddle bent cap.

Design was carried out for all ULS and SLS load combinations as per CHBDC and additional load case
scenarios for the LRT train were performed as per the Project Agreement (PA), including:

 ULS 1 to 9 and additional combinations 10a to 10d for multi-train combinations.

 Linear seismic loading ULS5 for a 2% elastic spectrum (the forces are factored bye 1.5 >> 1.25 as
recommended by CSA/S6-14-4.4.10.4.2).

1.. Post-tension tendon layout

The post-tension (PT) tendon layout was dictated by two main geometrical constraints:(1) Presence of the
embedded HSS pipe detail at the beam ends above the columns, and (2) Presence of the corbel
reinforcement at the mid-span of the beam. As a result, the PT tendons were forced above the embedded
GEN089-8
HSS pipe at the beam ends and below corbel reinforcement projecting across the beam section at mid-
span of the straddle bent, and thus, resulting in a parabolic layout in the minor and major axis of the beam.
All these constraints did not help to optimise the cable layout in order to avoid tension in the top of the
section at the post-tension transfer at stage 4, 7 and 8, see Figure 15. We therefore accepted that there
would be tension temporarily during construction and adjusted the passive reinforcement in the straddle
bent cap beam to take up these forces, Figure 12 shows the sections details of 2 beds of 24 bars of 35M
reinforcement in the top of cap beam to resist these tension stresses.

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
STRESS CONDITION, PASSIVE
REINFORCEMENT ADDED

Figure 13: Straddle Bent section stress along the length of the beam showing tension stress exceeding
upper-bound limits at steps 4, 7 and 8 but controlled with the addition of passive reinforcement

2.2 Post tension anchor design and additional considerations

The other regions of the cap beam are analyzed, designed and verified for each stage of construction
according to the shear, flexural, torsional, bursting stresses, edge tension forces, secondary post-tension
deflection effects of the tendons. A combination and complementarity use of the strut-and tie method,
refined elastic stress analyses and approximate methods provide by CAN/CSA-S6:14. have served to carry
out a rational and safe design.

The use of 3D modelling during detailed design permitted the observation of potential conflicts between
reinforcement, post-tensioning hardware, beam-column connection details all competing for space. As a
result, minimal conflicts and field design changes were recorded allowing for a near seamless fabrication
of the straddle bent.

Figure 14: Images from the 3D model used to detail and simulate the installation of the reinforcement and
the complete post tensioning system

GEN089-9
2.3 Reinforcement and post-tension layouts

Figure 15: Details of the reinforcing steel and prestressing cable in the cap beam of the straddle bent

1 CONCLUSION

As demonstrated in this article, the use of a straddle bent allowed the integration of a flyover in its
environment as an aesthetically, economical, and structurally sustainable solution. While the straddle bent
elements are not new in bridge engineering design, the integrated details in the Montreal Flyover straddle
bent deserve special attention from an engineering modeling, design and construction perspective. It was
possible in this project to propose and develop innovative ideas and solutions regarding the straddle bent-
column connection that assured the best structural behaviour, allowing the enhancement of the structural
design optimisation. The straddle bent details promote good behavior of the entire structure under all load
solicitation scenarios to which it will be subjected during its service life. The engineer is therefore called
upon to make good use of imagination and all available design tools to adapt and feed the structural
detailing to project constraints as those seen at Montreal Flyover.

Acknowledgements
Kiewit Eurovia Vinci, BBR, The City of Ottawa, WSP Canada Inc.
References
CSA S6:14. Standards - Canadian Highway Bridge Code
Larson, N., and All. 2013. Strength and Serviceability Design of Reinforced Concrete Inverted-T Beams.
Texas Department of Transportation/ Center for Transportation Research the University of Texas at
Austin.

GEN089-10