V o l . 36 N o .

2 J u n e 2003

IS Panel Road Maintenance System Applied to Hyogo Viaduct

IIDA Masao : Chief Engineer, Bridge Division, ISMIC NISHIOKA Masaharu : Chief Engineer, Bridge Division, ISMIC

Consequently, maintenance and reinforcement must be undertaken for these bridges to ensure extended service. The IS panel method developed by ISMIC and IHI is applicable to reinforcement of RC (reinforced concrete) deck without traffic control. This method has been applied to 25 bridges up until 2000. The Hyogo Viaduct repair work was a typical project conducted for the Ministry of Construction (present Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). The construction outline of the viaduct is described together with the effectiveness of RC deck reinforcement which was confirmed by the site load tests.

1. Introduction
Number of bridges

250 000 200 000 150 000 100 000 50 000 Service of 50 years and longer Service of 75 years and longer Total number of bridges

Road structures are increasingly being damaged by increased automobile traffic, larger vehicles, and aging, and there are many steel bridges with seriously damaged RC deck. The IS panel method is among several methods used for repairing/reinforcing damaged RC deck but is especially applicable to seriously damaged RC deck and can be used for reinforcing them from the underside without the necessity of traffic control. As bridges in Japan face an ultra-high aging era increasingly requiring maintenance, we report the achievements of the IS panel method and work details of the Hyogo Viaduct, which was reinforced by this method. The IS panel method was developed jointly by ISMIC and IHI and obtained the technical qualification of the Road Management Technical Center in 1997. For the detailed design and execution method, see the reference.(1),(2)

0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year

Fig. 1

Prospects of road bridges

2. Present conditions of Japans bridges

There are about 130 000 road bridges in Japan, and about 56 000 of them are steel bridges. Only about 6 000 bridges were constructed before 1940, but bridge construction rapidly increased from around 1960, and around 1975, 4 000 or more bridges were constructed annually. Fig. 1 shows the estimated total number of bridges, those older than 50 years and those older than 75 years. As the graph shows the number of bridges older than 50 years will start to increase around 2010, and the ratio to the total number 5% in 2000 will increase to 9% in 2010, 25% in 2020, 42% in 2030, and 51% in 2040, thus leading to an era of ultra-high aging of bridges. The service life of a steel bridge is said to be about 50 years, depending on various conditions. If the
116

existing bridges are left unattended, the number of unusable bridges will increase, thus impeding social activities. Replacing all the bridges 50 years or older is impossible because of national finances, so it is necessary to take measures to extend the life of the existing bridges by 50/100 years by repairing and reinforcing them now when the extent of damage is small. The IS panel method is also an effective method for prolonging bridge life.

3. RC deck reinforcing methods and achievements of the IS panel method

The IS panel method described here is used to reinforce RC deck of a steel bridge using steel panels from the underside. One of its important features is that it does not require the traffic control required by the top thickness increasing method and RC deck replacing method, both of which, among other RC deck reinforcing methods, are meant to increase both flexural and shear strength. Table 1 shows the achievements of this method up to 2000.

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

Table 1
Order issued by

Achievements by IS panel
Bridge name Asakaoohashi Nezugasekigawabashi Houmeikosenkyou Yamatobashi Nagakumaoohashi Kazanamibashi Naraoohashi Niyodogawabashi Tushimaoohashi Miyoshioohashi Daiichiichinosebashi Dainiichinosebashi Hyougokoukakyou Syoujinbashi 16 goukyouryou Koutoushinbashi Kasaibashi Takaidorikkyou Harumibashi Aritakosenkyou Anzaibashi Tannanbashi Yoshinoguchikosenkyou Ondooohashi Oyatanibashi 25 bridges Year 9 10 12 6 11 7 5 7 7 10, 11 12 12 11, 12 11 12 6, 8 8 9 12 5, 6 7, 8, 9 8 10 8 11 Area (2) 44 411 213 687 22 375 1 193 2 163 346 1 412 481 516 640 447 72 491 1 058 21 1 400 596 1 768 517 320 1 032 295 16 520

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ibaraki Prefecture Gunma Prefecture Tokyo Metropolis Tokyo Metropolis Tokyo Metropolis Tokyo Metropolis Niigata Prefecture Shizuoka Prefecture Osaka Prefecture Nara Prefecture Hiroshima Prefecture Water Resources Development Corporation Total

4. RC deck reinforcing work of Hyogo Viaduct by the IS panel method

4.1 Outline of bridge and decision on RC deck reinforcing method The Hyogo Viaduct is a bridge constructed at a place where National Highway No. 34 between Tosu City, Saga Prefecture, and Nagasaki City crosses the Nagasaki Honsen within Saga City. Recently heavy traffic has increased, RC deck reinforcing work of the bridge has been promoted since 1996 by the Ministry of Construction (present Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) as a way to cope with the loading of 25-ton B live load. The Hyogo Viaduct is outlined below, and Fig. 2 shows the general arrangement of the viaduct and Fig. 3 the general view. Bridge type Simple composite Htype steel girder bridge Live load B live load (25-ton vehicle loading) Bridge length 340.225 m Span length 16.6 m 10 spans + 13.475 m + 24.6 m 2 spans + 20.9 m + 16.6 m 5 spans (19 spans in total)

Side view
340 225 17 025 9 17 000=153 000 13 875 25 000 25 000 21 300 4 17 000=68 000 17 025

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P12

P13

P14

P15

P16

P17

P18

A2

IS panel execution range

17 025 12 200 400 9 050 400 950 1 400 9 17 000=153 000 17 250 25 000 18 750 4 17 000 = 68 000 IS panel 17 025 33 300 = 9 900 G1 G2 G3 G4 9 17 000=153 000 11 000 4 17 000 = 68 000 400 400

Plan

17 025

25 000

25 000

17 025

Cross section of present bridge (P16A2)

12 200 400 950 30 190 9 050 1 400 190 120 400 400 400 500

Cross section of reinforcement (P16A2)

12 200 950 30 190 9 050 1 400 190 120 G4 1 250

Asphalt pavement thickness 50

500

Asphalt pavement thickness 50 RC deck thickness 210

2%

RC deck thickness 210

2%

IS panel
G1 1 050 G2 G3 G4 1 250 G1 1 050 G2 G3 3 3 300=9 900 3 3 300 = 9 900

Fig. 2

General arrangement of viaduct (unit : mm)

117

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

Fig. 3

General view

Effective width Total width Number of main girders Main girder spacing RC deck

1.400 m + 9.050 m + 0.950 m 12.200 m 4 3.300 m Reinforced concrete 21 cm in thickness

Table 2

For this bridge, RC deck reinforcing had been done by the underside thickness increasing method, but this time the IS panel method was adopted for RC deck reinforcing work as a pilot project based on a general judgment on the extent of damage of RC deck, durability, work cost and environmental impact compared with other methods. For reinforcing the existing RC deck from the underside, such methods as shown in Table 2 are available. The design and execution of RC deck reinforcing work by the IS panel method for the Hyogo Viaduct are outlined below. 4.2 Design and structure The design conditions when the IS panel was designed are as follows. (1) The IS panel is designed for RC deck reinforcing. (2) The IS panel is loaded with dead load and live load. (3) The live load is B live load, the rear wheels of the automobile are of two axles and the wheel load is 5 tf. (4) The load is distributed at 45 from the top surface of the existing RC deck and works on the IS panel.

List of RC deck underside reinforcement methods

Features/problems of reinforcing method Extent of damage Increase in dead load Small Medium

Reinforcing method Stringer extension method

Reinforcement

Method to decrease 1. Load distribution factor is improved. stress by reducing stress 2. If cracking density increases, shear resistance decreases. resultant 3. Even when stress level decreases, cracking progress does not stop. Method to reduce stress by increasing sectional rigidity 1. Combining effect with existing RC deck is high and flexural rigidity increases. 2. Shear resistance is recovered due to penetration of resin into cracking. 3. Another method must be considered for RC deck of cantilever portion. 4. If rainwater is accumulated, separation from the existing RC deck may occur and bonding effect may decrease. 1. Concrete theory is established with the thickness increased portion and the existing portion as one piece, and rigidity against bending and shearing is improved. 2. Another method must be considered for RC deck of cantilever portion. 3. Any deterioration of concrete cover must be removed. 4. New cracking tends to be induced by vibrating drill. 1. It is not so easily affected by the shape of RC deck underside and additive. 2. Work execution is easy. 3. Rate of increase in dead load is very small. 4. Another method must be considered for RC deck of cantilever portion. 5. Any deterioration of concrete cover must be removed. 1. Method to compensate for re-damage in stringer extension method. 2. It is effective when running cost is high. 3. If the combination method is to be adopted in the first place, there may be other methods superior in economy, reinforcing effect, durability, and appearance. 1. Since panels are supported by main girder, deflection and stress are greatly reduced and reinforcing effect is high. 2. No dropping of concrete pieces and no dropping of block. 3. RC deck of cantilever portion can also be reinforced by adopting a structure using stringer and bracket. 4. Rigidity on flange side on main girder becomes very high, and as a result, the stress of flange side on main girder is reduced. 5. Rate of increase in dead load is higher than other proposal. 6. If the RC deck underside is rough, the quantity of filling material increases. 7. Cost of re-painting the panels is incurred.

Steel plate bonding method

Medium

Medium

Underside thickness increasing method

Method to reduce stress by increasing sectional rigidity

Medium

Medium

Carbon fiber sheet attaching method

Method to reduce stress by increasing sectional rigidity

Medium

Small

Combination of stringer extension and steel plate bonding or underside thickness increasing or carbon fiber sheet attaching method

Method to reduce stress by decreasing stress resultant and increasing sectional rigidity at the same time Method to reduce stress by decreasing stress resultant and increasing sectional rigidity at the same time

Large

Large

IS panel method

Large

Large

118

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

(5) The rigidity of the existing RC deck is expected, and the load is shared by the existing RC deck and the IS panel. (6) RC deck of the portion surrounded by the main girder and cross girder is reinforced by the IS panels. (7) In the axial direction of bridge, the IS panels are separated at the cross girder and are not made continuous. (8) The haunch portion of RC deck is not reinforced. (9) The clearance between the IS panel and the existing RC deck is filled with epoxy resin. Based on the above design conditions, the IS panels were designed in the following structural dimensions. Main girder spacing (cross rib span length) 3 300 mm Cross rib spacing (longitudinal rib span length) 1 565 mm Longitudinal rib cantilever length 367 mm

Longitudinal rib spacing 384 mm Pavement thickness (asphalt) 50 mm RC deck thickness (reinforced concrete) 210 mm Deck plate thickness of IS panel 6 mm Longitudinal rib section 130 10 mm Cross rib section Web 420 8 mm Flange 100 8 mm Fig. 4 shows the structural drawing of the IS panel. As a result of the design calculation, the unit steel weight of the IS panel was 853 N/m2 {87 kgf/m2}, and we think that a rational design was made because the target was 980 N/m2 {100 kgf/m2} or less. 4.3 Execution of work The IS panels were manufactured at a factory Fukuoka Prefecture and transported in two lots to the site by a 30 t truck at night. Under the bridge at the erection site, were flat ground and an agricultural pond. Under such topographical conditions, the erection of IS panels

200 370 367 410 88

4 137.5 3 727 40.5 140 360 360

4 137.5 3 857 367 140.5

410

88

6 384=2 304

3 300

2 480

Drain hole 737 200 40 330 367 1 500 1 500 3 727 1 500 1 500 400.5 500 100 40.5 40 360 360 1 565 1 565 3 857 1 565 1 565 507.5 40.5 100 367

100

Detail of portion O Epoxy resin filled 6 5 (Average) 410 88

Cross section 2 480 6 384=2 304 5 6 410 88 30 6 5 (Average)

Detail of drain hole

R2

.5

10

28 drill

60 124 99.3

420 8

420

351 170 60 75

3 20 185 15
G2 G3

O 15 185 20 9
G1 G4

2 875

Outside diameter

40

27.2

15

35 40 75100 75 185 2 875 20

1Pipe. 20A 41 (SUS304TP) t = 2.5 mm

40

3 300

Fig. 4

IS panel construction (unit : mm)

119

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

Member transporting procedure

Crane

Erection procedure (ground portion)

Moving truck

IS panel lifting procedure

G.L

Member taken in Member transporting procedure (direction normal to bridge) section Temporary pedestal (Prefabricated scaffolding) Boarding protection Trolley for 1 t

Trolley for 1 t

G.L Boarding protection Panel turning

Erection procedure (suspended scaffolding)

Chain block

Iron plate Rail for trolley

Rail for trolley Member transporting procedure (direction normal to bridge) side Rail for trolley Trolley for 1 t Lever block for 0.5 t

Member transporting procedure (bridge axial direction) side Lifting ring for 2 t Rail for trolley

Trolley for 1 t Lever block for 0.5 t

Fig. 5

Erection procedure

120

Member transporting procedure (bridge axial direction) section

Rail for trolley

Lever block for 0.5 t

G.L

Fence removal/restoration

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

was made as follows. (1) Flat ground under the bridge Erection members were moved to a specified place by truck. The member was raised at 4 points by chain block, positioned, and then connected to the main girder with high-strength bolts. (2) Place with retarding basin under the bridge Suspended scaffolding is installed. Load-taking section is provided with prefabricated scaffolding. Under the main girder and cross girder, rails for trolley were installed. The member lifted at the load-taking section by the trolley is laterally moved to the specified position in the axial direction of the bridge and in the direction normal to the axial direction of the bridge. The work to lift the member at the specified position and install it to the main girder was the same as the erection method on the flat ground. The erection proceeded as scheduled and was completed within the construction period as expected. In the reinforcing method from the underside of RC deck, including the IS panel method, it is important to stop penetration of rainwater from the cracked portion of RC deck. Such penetration will not only damage RC deck but also allow the water to accumulate on the top surface of the member reinforcing RC deck, weakening the adhesion between the existing RC deck and the reinforcing member. For this bridge, a waterproof layer had already been laid under the pavement and the IS panel was provided with a drain pipe so that no rainwater would accumulate between the reinforcing member and RC deck. Fig. 5 shows the erection procedure of the IS panels, Table 3 shows the schedules of the site work and Fig. 6 shows the condition after reinforcing. 4.4 Tests to check reinforcing effects To check the effects of RC deck reinforcing by the IS panel method, we conducted static loading tests as follows before and after the reinforcing. (1) The purpose of the tests was to check the effect of reducing the stress of the reinforcing bars of the existing RC deck and the difference between the calculated stress and measured stress of the IS panel. (2) As a loading load, a 25 tf dump truck (tandem type) was used, and the test was repeated 3 times to measure the static deformation, paying attention to the longitudinal rib and cross rib with two IS panels. Fig. 7 and Table 4 show the loading positions and test results, respectively. The results confirmed that the stress of the main reinforcing bar of RC deck decreased

Table 3
Item Preparatory work Design checking, procurement for materials Temporary equipment work Site measuring Panel fabrication at factory Transporting RC deck surface preparation Erection work of panels, etc. Seal, filling work Field painting

Construction schedule at site

2000 May June July August September

January February March April

Fig. 6

IS panel after reinforcement work

to about 1/5 of the stress before the reinforcing and the reinforcing effect. With the cross rib of the IS panel, the measured stress was 16% against the calculated stress, proving that the structure was within the calculated values. The deflection of the entire bridge measured at RC deck center decreased to about 75% from the deflection before the reinforcing, and it was verified that the rigidity of the entire bridge, including the load distribution effect, increased.

5. Conclusion
We have described the necessity of maintenance of steel bridges in Japan and the features of the reinforcement of existing RC deck by the IS panel method and reported on the application of this method to the Hyogo Viaduct. We hope this method will be used for reinforcing RC deck of steel bridges in the future, thus contributing to the improvement of permanent durability of the bridges. We are now striving to develop more economical structures with improved
121

V o l . 36 N o . 2 J u n e 2003

Loading point A2

Loading point B2

Loading point A1

Loading point B1

3 300 G1 Loading point A1 A2 G2

3 300 G3 Loading point B1 B2

3 300 G4 Distribution reinforcement direction Main reinforcement direction Deflection measuring

4 cross ribs D-4 deflection 3 300 G1 G2

8 cross ribs D-8 deflection 3 300 G3

3 300 G4 Distribution reinforcement direction Main reinforcement direction Deck plate Longitudinal rib

Loading point A2 Loading point A1 50 50

Loading point B2 Deck plate Loading point B1 Longitudinal rib 50 To Takeo 192 50

South To Takeo 4 cross 1/2 1/2 ribs

To Tosu South To Takeo 1/2 1/2 8 cross ribs

To Tosu

Fig. 7

Loading position (unit : mm) Table 4 Test results

Loading position

Structure

Member name

Measuring position

Gauge No.

Stress measured Stress measured Stress measured Stress measured Calculated stress after reinforcing before reinforcing after reinforcing after reinforcing Stress measured N/mm2 { kgf/cm2 } N/mm2 { kgf/cm2 } N/mm2 { kgf/cm2 } Calculated stress before reinforcing 13 {108} 57 {547} 57 {547} 136 {1 361} 13 {108} 57 {547} 57 {547} 136 {1 361} 16 {156} 3.08 mm 22 {217} 3.20 mm 3 {32} 2.40 mm 4 {42} 4 {42} 4 {40} 22 {216} 3 {25} 2.30 mm 4 {36} 5 {45} 4 {41} 23 {221} 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.16 0.33 0.08 0.07 0.16 0.21 0.78 0.12 0.72

Existing member Loading point A

RC deck Main reinforcement reinforcing bar Deflection RC deck center Bridge axial direction

4-2 D4 4DPL-1 4DPL-2

Reinforcing member

Deck plate Direction normal to bridge axis Cross rib RC deck reinforcing bar Main reinforcement Deflection RC deck center Bridge axial direction

4DPL-3 4 cross ribs 8-2 D8 8DPL-1 8DPL-2

Existing member Loading point B

Reinforcing member

Deck plate Direction normal to bridge axis Cross rib

8DPL-3 8 cross ribs

workability, for example, by using weathering steel in consideration of the LCC (Life Cycle Cost). We were able to complete RC deck reinforcing work of the Hyogo Viaduct with the help of guidance and suggestions from the staff of Saga National Highway Construction Office, Kyushu Maintenance Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. We express our heartfelt thanks to them.

REFERENCES (1) Road Management Technical Center : Report for Examination and Certification of Road Maintenance Technology, IS Panel Road Maintenance System, March 1997 (2) T. Ishii, M Sugizaki and M. Iida : IS Panel Under Deck Panel Method Underside Reinforcement Method for Reinforced Concrete Slab of Steel Bridge, Ishikawajima-Harima Engineering Review Vol.37 No.6 Nov. 1997 pp.470-473

122

192