National Academies Press: OpenBook

Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems (2005)

Chapter: Chapter One - Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 7

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3BACKGROUND With the popularity and rapid growth in the use of cable-stayed bridges in the United States and worldwide, issues related to inspection and maintenance of stay cables are taking on added significance. Examples of problems that could affect stay cable performance include excessive vibrations, corrosion, fatigue, and the general inability to reliably ascertain the internal con- dition of the cables, especially in the critical anchorage zones. Many of the assessment and repair methods are still in early development and information on reliable, proven techniques is not readily available. Bridge owners and engineers are faced with selecting and using a number of new technologies or approaches for cable assessments without the benefit of know- ing their degree of effectiveness. Although some valuable data are available, they are generally not readily accessible. There- fore, this synthesis project aims to collect and synthesize such information into a single document. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges are the two promi- nent types of cable-supported bridges. In both systems, cables are supported on pylons. In cable-stayed bridges, the cables are inclined and directly support the deck on the pylon(s). In suspension bridges, vertical suspender cables transfer loads from the deck to the main catenary-shaped cables. The main cables in suspension bridges are typically anchored at massive anchorages at the two ends of the bridge, whereas stay cables are anchored to the deck itself. In their basic form and concept, cable-stayed bridges have existed for centuries. In 1823, French engineer C.L. Navier presented some of his concepts for bridges supported by wrought iron chains, as shown in Figure 1 (Gimsing 1999). Although these sketches strikingly resemble the modern cable-stayed bridges, Navier envisioned ground-anchored backstays only. The next phase involved design of combined suspension and stayed systems. A prominent example is the Brooklyn Bridge, designed in the 19th century by John A. Roebling. The first modern cable-stayed bridge was the Strömsund Bridge built in 1955 in Sweden, which was designed by Franz Dischinger. It had a main span of 182.6 m (599 ft) (Gimsing 1999). The first major cable-stayed bridge made of concrete pylons and girders was the Maracaibo Bridge in Venezuela, built in 1962. As will be discussed later in this report, the cables of this bridge were subsequently replaced as a result of corrosion. The early bridges all had only a few stay cables, which pro- vided support at locations where piers would have otherwise existed (Walther et al. 1999). This concept of using cables with large spacing did not fully realize the structural (and economic) potential of cable-stayed bridges. In 1967, H. Homberg used closely spaced stays (or the multi-stay system) on the Friedrich Ebert Bridge in Germany (Walther et al. 1999). The Brotonne Bridge in France used closely spaced stays, and the cable system was based on post-tensioning technology in which parallel seven-wire strands were encased in steel pipes and grouted (Gimsing 1999). The Zarate–Brazo Largo Bridges in Argentina were the first cable-stayed bridges designed to carry railroad and automobile traffic. As will be discussed later, one of the Argentine bridges had a complete failure of one of the stays after fewer than 20 years of service. The oldest cable-stayed bridge in the United States is the Sitka Harbor Bridge in Alaska, built in 1970 (see Figure 2). The oldest cable-stayed bridge in North America is believed to be the North Romaine River railroad bridge in Québec, Canada, which was built in 1960. The oldest highway cable- stayed bridges in Canada are the Longs Creek #1 and Hawk- shaw bridges in New Brunswick, built in 1966 and 1967, respectively. Other early and prominent cable-stayed bridges in North America include the Papineau Bridge in Montreal (1969) and the Pasco–Kennewick Bridge in Washington State (1978). CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION FIGURE 1 Bridge systems envisioned by Navier (Gimsing 1999).

The pace of construction of new cable-stayed bridges in the United States grew rapidly in the 1990s and early 2000s. Today, cable-stayed bridges have entirely replaced truss bridges on new medium- to long-span crossings. For exam- ple, all new crossings of the Mississippi River in the last 15 to 20 years have been with cable-stayed bridges, whereas these spans were exclusively truss bridges before that time. The essential factor is the cost-effectiveness of the system, aided by its elegance. The total number of cable-stayed bridges in the United States recently surpassed 35, with several other bridges in planning or under construction. These include bridges in the planning stages in New York City, St. Louis, and one spanning the Mississippi River between Mississippi and Arkansas. The St. Louis bridge, if implemented, would have a main span of 610 m (2,000 ft), and will be the longest cable-stayed span in the Western Hemisphere (Brown 2001b). The world record for cable size will belong to the Maumee River Bridge in Toledo, Ohio, scheduled for completion in late 2006 (DSI 2004). This bridge incorporates stays with 156 seven-wire strands 15.2 mm (0.6 in.) in diameter and cable diameters of up to 508 mm (20 in.) (Marsh 2003). The longest span cable-stayed bridge in the world is the Tatara Bridge in Ehime, Japan, with a main span of 890 m (2,920 ft). However, the Stonecutters Bridge in Hong Kong will surpass Tatara with a span of 1018 m (3,339 ft) when it is completed in 2008 (Brown 2001a). The Millau Bridge in France (Viaduc de Millau) is the world’s tallest bridge and spans France’s Tarn River Valley. It consists of multiple cable-stayed spans with span lengths of approximately 340 m and a total length of approximately 2.5 km. The deck is approximately 270 m above the valley and the pylons reach 343 m above the ground. The challenges in inspection and maintenance of cable- stayed bridges are enormous. The main tension elements (MTEs) within a cable bundle are, in most cases, hidden from the view of inspectors. Access to cables for visual inspections or nondestructive testing (NDT) is generally difficult, and in 4 the case of the anchorage zones, nearly impossible. Those who are tasked with the inspection and maintenance of stay cables face challenges for which proven and accepted methodologies and tools are limited and often very costly. For example, the internal deterioration and failure of an Argentine stay cable in 1996 was not detected beforehand by visual means. This synthesis report will present the latest information available on inspection and maintenance of stay cables, ex- plains various tools and methods available, and examines their track record or future potential in addressing stay cable eval- uations. To better understand the applicability and complexi- ties of various methods and approaches, a brief overview of different stay cable designs and materials is also presented. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of this synthesis is to identify and explain effec- tive and promising inspection and maintenance techniques for stay cables in cable-stayed bridges. Both short- and long- term approaches are discussed. This synthesis is based on the following: • A comprehensive review of domestic and inter- national literature to identify various techniques and their track records, as well as documented problems and case studies; • Formal and informal surveys of state and provincial de- partments of transportation (DOTs) in the United States and Canada, cable suppliers, testing companies, bridge designers, researchers, and contractors to determine the current state of practice and identify future trends in con- dition assessments and repair and retrofit of stay cables. These surveys were conducted by means of a question- naire and through meetings, telephone conversations, and e-mail exchanges with knowledgeable individuals; • Examination of test reports and condition assessment results from major inspections and cable-stayed bridges; • Review of a limited number of maintenance and inspec- tion manuals for cable-stayed bridges; and • A patent search using the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. This synthesis includes the following types of information: • Methods for inspections and assessments including NDT methods, • Repair methods, • Methods for control of cable vibrations including rain– wind vibrations, • Control of moisture from internal or external sources, • Fatigue in stay cables, • Case studies of stay cable failures, • Repair and retrofit issues and details, • Effectiveness and costs of various inspection and repair methods, • Limitations of available technologies, FIGURE 2 Sitka Harbor Bridge in Alaska, the oldest cable- stayed bridge in the United States (Frank and Breen 2004).

5• Future trends and promising technologies, and • Recommendations for future research. QUESTIONNAIRE A questionnaire (see Appendix A) was prepared and distributed to all state and provincial DOTs in the United States and Canada. The same questionnaire was also sent to all members of the Post-Tensioning Institute’s (PTI) Cable-Stayed Bridge Committee, as well as major U.S. and Mexican stay cable sup- pliers and testing companies. Table 1 cites those states and provinces that responded and the number of bridges reported by each agency. A completed questionnaire was also received from one stay cable supplier. Table 2 is a list of all known cable- stayed bridges in the United States and Canada. The informa- tion contained in the completed surveys, published literature, a paper by Podolny (1992), and a report by Kumarasena et al. (2004) were used to assemble this list. In the United States, 43 state DOTs (86%) responded to the survey, 24 of which did not have any cable-stayed bridges under their jurisdiction. One city (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is maintaining two recently completed cable-stayed bridges. A completed questionnaire for one of the two new cable-stayed bridges in Ohio (Maumee River Bridge) was provided by the designer of the bridge. A completed survey for one of the two cable-stayed bridges in Florida, the Dame Point Bridge in Jacksonville, was re- ceived. In addition, the Indiana DOT provided responses on two bridges, one a cable-stayed bridge and the other an arch bridge that incorporated stay cables. Table 1 lists only one cable-stayed bridge in Indiana, but the analyses of question- naire results include both Indiana bridges. In the United States, completed questionnaires were re- ceived for 75% of all known cable-stayed bridges (i.e., 27 of 36 cable-stayed bridges, with one additional arch bridge). It should be noted that four of the bridges listed in the U.S. inventory are pedestrian bridges. Therefore, the responses covered 84% of all highway bridges in the United States. No responses on U.S. pedestrian bridges were received. Ques- tionnaires were not received for several other major cable- stayed bridges in the United States including the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida, two bridges in West Virginia (East Huntington and Weirton–Steubenville), and the recently com- pleted La Plata River Bridge in Puerto Rico. In Canada, responses were obtained from 5 of the 13 prov- inces, representing 13 of the 16 known cable-stayed bridges in Canada (81%). The five cable-stayed bridges in Alberta/ Calgary are all pedestrian bridges. Responses were not received for the ALRT Fraser River Bridge in British Columbia, and Bridge of the Isles and North Romaine railroad bridge in Que- bec. In some states and Canadian provinces, different agencies controlled maintenance of different cable-stayed bridges, thus making the task of identifying the proper agencies difficult. Using the data in Table 2, Figures 3 and 4 show the num- ber of cable-stayed bridges built (i.e., opened to traffic) in the United States and Canada from 1955 to 2005 in 10-year in- crements. In the United States, there has been a substantial increase in the number and the rate of construction of cable- stayed bridges. From 1996 to 2005, 17 cable-stayed bridges were built in the United States, representing 47% of all such bridges built since 1970. The average age of cable-stayed bridges in the U.S. inventory (as of 2005) was 11.4 years, whereas the average age in Canada was 27 years. The early Canadian bridge, the 217-m Hawkshaw Bridge built in 1967, had galvanized bridge strands with the stay cable wrapped with galvanized wire 5 ft above the deck and then coated with protective paste. This approach is somewhat TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM STATES/ PROVINCES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA States/Provinces R es po ns e Re ce iv ed N o. o f B rid ge s R ep or te d States/Provinces R es po ns e Re ce iv ed N o. o f B rid ge s R ep or te d United States Alabama Y 1 Missouri Y 1 Alaska Y 2 Mississippia — 0 Arizona Y 0 Montana Y 0 Arkansasa f e — North Carolina Y 0 California Y 1 1 North Dakota Y 0 Colorado Y 0 New Hampshire Y 0 Connecticut Y 0 New Jersey Y 0 Delaware Y 1 New Mexico Y 0 Floridab — Nevada Y 0 Georgia Y 2 1 New York Y 0 Hawaii Y 0 Ohioc — 2 Idaho Y 0 Pennsylvania Y 0 Illinois Y 2 Rhode Island Y 0 Indiana Y 2 South Carolina Y 1 Iowa Y 1 Tennessee Y 0 Kansas Y 0 Texas Y 2 Kentucky Y 2 Utah Y 0 Louisiana Y 1 Virginia Y 1 Massachusetts Y 1 Washington Y 2 Maryland Y 0 Wisconsin Y 2 Michigan Y 0 Wyoming Y 0 Minnesota Y 0 Canada Alberta/Calgaryd — New Brunswick Y 3 British Columbia Y 1 5 Ontario Y 0 Manitoba/ Winnipeg Y 1 Québec Y 3 a Mississippi and Arkansas share a bridge that is under construction and will be maintained by Arkansas. b The survey for one of the two Florida cable-stayed bridges was received. c The Ohio DOT reported two cable-stayed bridges under construction and the questionnaire for one bridge was received. d All cable-stayed bridges reported for Calgary in Alberta, Canada, are pedestrian bridges. e There are two pedestrian cable-stayed bridges in downtown Denver, Colorado. Information was not available on these bridges at the time of the writing of this report. f There is a pedestrian cable-stayed bridge in Redding, California. Information for this bridge became available only after the completion of this report

6TABLE 2 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA No. Bridge Name State Span, m (ft) Year United States 1 Cooper River Bridge South Carolina 472 (1,546) 2005 2 Greenville Bridge, US 82 over Mississippi Mississippi 420 (1,378) 2005 3 Dame Point Bridge Florida 397 (1,300) 1989 4 Fred Hartman/Houston Ship Channel Texas 381 (1,250) 1995 5 Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick Georgia 381 (1,250) 2003 6 Hale Boggs/Luling Bridge Louisiana 373 (1,222) 1984 7 Sunshine Skyway Bridge Florida 366 (1,200) 1987 8 William Natcher/Owensboro Bridge Kentucky 366 (1,200) 2002 9 Bill Emerson/Cape Girardeau Bridge Missouri 351 (1,150) 2003 10 Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah Georgia 336 (1,100) 1991 11 William Harsha Bridge, Maysville Kentucky 320 (1,050) 2000 12 Pasco–Kennewick Bridge, Gum Street Washington 299 (981) 1978 13 East Huntington Bridge West Virginia 275 (900) 1985 14 Quincy/Bayview Bridge Illinois 275 (900) 1986 15 US Grant, Portsmouth Ohio 267 (875) 2004 16 Weirton–Steubenville West Virginia 250 (820) 1990 17 Cochrane Africatown Bridge Alabama 238 (780) 1991 18 Clark Bridge, Alton Illinois 230 (756) 1994 19 C&D Canal Bridge Delaware 229 (750) 1995 20 L.P. Zakim Bunker Hill, Charles River Massachusetts 227 (745) 2002 21 Burlington Bridge, Burlington Iowa 201 (660) 1995 22 Veterans Memorial/Neches River Bridge Texas 195 (640) 1991 23 Varina–Enon Bridge/James River Virginia 192 (630) 1990 24 Maumee River Crossing Ohio 187 (613) 2005 25 PR 148 over LaPlata River Puerto Rico 160 (525) 2005 26 SR 46/East Fork White River Indiana 142 (466) 1999 27 Sitka Harbor/John O’Connel Bridge Alaska 137 (450) 1970 28 Tea Foss Waterway Bridge, Tacoma Washington 114 (375) 1996 29 Captain William Moore/Skagway Alaska 83 (271) 1975 30 Milwaukee Art Museum/Calatrava Bridgea Wisconsin 70 (231) 2003 31 Menomonee Fallsa Wisconsin 66 (217) 1971 32 Sixth Street Viaduct—North Wisconsin 59 (195) 2003 33 Sixth Street Viaduct—South Wisconsin 59 (195) 2003 34 Sacramento River (Meridian)b California 55 (180) 1977 35 Rockefeller University Campusa New York 38 (123) 1999 36 Old Plank Road Trail Bridgea Illinois 35 (114) 1999 Canada 1 Alex Fraser (Annacis) Bridge British Columbia 465 (1,526) 1986 2 ALRT Fraser River Bridge British Columbia 340 (1,115) 1988 3 Papineau–Leblanc Quebec 241 (790) 1969 4 Hawkshaw New Brunswick 218 (713) 1967 5 Longs Creek #1 New Brunswick 218 (713) 1966 6 Price Quebec 137 (450) 1972 7 Esplanade Riel, Manitoba Winnipeg 106 (348) 2003 8 Bridge of the Isles Quebec 105 (344) 1967 9 Stoney Traila Alberta/Calgary 102 (335) 1998 10 Galipeault Quebec 94 (308) 1963 11 Carburn Parka Alberta/Calgary 80 (262) 1982 12 Prince’s Islanda Alberta/Calgary 67 (220) 1972 13 Nackawic River New Brunswick 66 (216) 1967 14 North Romaine Riverc Quebec 61 (200) 1960 15 McMahon*** Alberta/Calgary 47 (154) 1987 16 Fox Hollow*** Alberta/Calgary 45 (148) 1996 a b c Notes: Bridges are cited in order of span length, from longest to shortest. After the completion of this report, three additional, recently built pedestrian cable-stayed bridges were identified in the United States; two in downtown Denver, Colorado, and one in Redding, California. These three bridges are not included in the analysis. Pedestrian. Swing movable bridge. Railroad bridge.

7similar to the suspension bridge main cables. The Papineau Bridge in Montreal (1969) incorporated galvanized bridge strands covered with polyethylene (PE) sheathing. The Sitka Harbor Bridge in Alaska (1970) also used galvanized bridge strands as cables, but without the PE sheathing. The Pasco– Kennewick (or Gum Street–Kennewick) Bridge in Washing- ton State (1978) was the first cable-stayed bridge in the United States to use parallel nongalvanized (bare) wires encased in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe wrapped with poly- vinyl chloride (PVC) tape and grouted with cement grout. This was a fundamental shift from the earlier designs based on the industrial and suspension cable technologies involving gal- vanized wires and strands toward grouted cables based on the post-tensioning technology. As will be discussed later, this grouted cable approach was first implemented in Europe, most notably on the Brotonne Bridge in France, before its implemen- tation on the Pasco–Kennewick Bridge. This approach of using HDPE pipes filled with cement grout began the “grout era” in the United States, which dominated the U.S. stay cable designs for nearly two decades until the late 1990s. The Canadians, the Germans, and the Japanese among others have primarily avoided the grouted cable approach. The Pasco–Kennewick Bridge was also the first of its kind in the United States to use a larger number of cables (i.e., reduce cable spacing). In Canada, the 465-m Alex Fraser Bridge (1986) in- cluded long-lay galvanized bridge strands that were jacketed with PE filled with petroleum wax blocking compound. The first and only cable-stayed bridge in the United States that uses steel bars (or threadbars) is the Dame Point Bridge in Jacksonville, Florida (1989). In that bridge, the nongalva- nized bars are encased in steel pipe and grouted. There are four pedestrian bridges in Calgary, Canada, that use bar stay cables, all galvanized without HDPE or grouting. The bars are anchored through threaded couplers. The first stay cables with epoxy-coated seven-wire strands were installed on the Quincy/Bayview Bridge in Quincy, Illinois (1986). In the last 20 years, the design of stay cables including the corrosion/fatigue protection systems have significantly and continuously evolved and been modified. In the 1990s, systems offered by all of the major stay cable suppliers were rarely (if ever) left unchanged between consecutive projects despite eco- nomic incentives to limit such changes. This was primarily because the designers, cable suppliers, and owners learned from their experiences and the performances of the earlier stay cable systems during qualification testing and construction. Since 2000, a tentative convergence of approaches emerged among some of the stay cable systems offered by various suppliers in the United States. All major U.S. stay cable suppliers began offering at least one system involving par- allel seven-wire strands that were individually greased-and- sheathed (or waxed-and-sheathed), encased in an ungrouted HDPE pipe, and anchored with wedges. Individual stressing of strands, as opposed to simultaneous stressing of all strands with large hydraulic jacks, was commonly used. Some of the more recent systems reportedly allow periodic removal of individual strands for inspection and sometimes provide room for future additions of strands into the cables. Following this introductory chapter, chapter two provides an overview of various stay cable systems, touching on design, materials, fabrication, and erection. Chapter three describes short- and long-term inspection and monitoring techniques. Chapter four discusses the maintenance and repair of stay cables, chapter five briefly discusses future trends, and chap- ter six summarizes the findings and provides suggestions for future research. The survey questionnaire is included as Appendix A. Appendix B provides detailed statistical tabular summaries of the answers to each of the multiple-choice questions as provided by the respondents for all bridges. The answers are categorized as U.S. responses, Canadian responses, and all responses. Appendix C is a web-only section of the report that provides detailed question-by-question results of each bridge surveyed and comparative tables of the the different responses to each question. This appendix can be found at: http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_syn_353.pdf. FIGURE 3 Number of cable-stayed bridges built in the United States. FIGURE 4 Number of cable-stayed bridges built in Canada. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 More Years N o. o f B rid ge s Bu ilt 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 More Years N o. o f B rid ge s Bu ilt

Next: Chapter Two - Stay Cable Systems and Materials »
Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 353: Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems identifies and explains various inspection and maintenance techniques for bridge stay cable systems. It discusses both short- and long-term approaches. The report information on methods for inspections and assessments, including nondestructive testing and evaluation procedures; repair and retrofit; methods for control of cable vibrations, including rain–wind vibrations; stay cable fatigue and failure; effectiveness of various inspection and repair methods; limitations of available technologies; and trends and recommendations for future study.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!