STUDY OF LONG SPAN

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
BRIDGE GIRDERS

Francis J. Jacques, P.E.

Prestressed Concrete of Colorado, Inc.
Denver, Colorado

New safety standards for interstate and other high speed highways,
adopted by the AASHO Committee
on Bridges and Structures, recommend that the righthand piers on
undercrossings be eliminated and
that 30 ft. (9m) minimum lateral
clearances on either side of all travel
lanes be provided.
Compliance with these criteria on
a two-way, four-lane undercrossing
requires a girder span of 112 ft.
(34m) for a right angle crossing. The
span increases to 160 ft. (49m) for
a 45 deg. skew crossing.
Following the same criteria on
one-way, two-lane undercrossings
the required girder span becomes
130 ft. (40m) for a right angle cross-

ing and increases to 175 ft. (53m)

for a 45 deg. skew crossing.
The Iargest prestressed girder
presently being built in the Colorado
area is a Type IV AASHO which
will economically span about 105 ft.
(32m). Thus, it became obvious that
if the prestressed industry in the
Colorado area intended to continue
to participate in the bridge girder
business, it had to develop a new
standard girder section or system of
precast girder segments that would
economically span about 150 ft.
(46m).
PRESENT STATE OF THE ART

Long span girders. Standard long

span girder sections already being

Table 1. Standard girder sections

Section
AASHO Type IV
AASHO Type V
AASHO Type VI
Oregon Section
Washington 100 Series
Washington 120 Series
24

Recommended span range, ft.

70 to 105 (21-32m)
90 to 120 (27-37m)
110 to 140 (34-43m)
100 to 140 (30-43m)
100 to 120 (30-37m)
110 to 140 (34-43m)
PCI Journal

This paper reports on the development of a new Colorado standard

bridge girder section. Computer programs are developed on
final girder designs and final bridge costs.
Nine girder sections are studied in depth, including four proposed
Colorado standard sections. Data are developed for both stone and
lightweight concrete girders with concrete strengths varying from
5000 to 7000 psi (350 to 490 kg/cm2).

used in other parts of the country

are shown in Table 1.
Also, it should be noted that the
maximum recommended spans can
be exceeded by utilizing very close
girder spacings, high strength concrete, or lightweight concrete.
Span shortening systems. Schemes to
reduce effective girder spans were
surveyed.
Fig. la shows an inverted A-frame
center pier used to shorten the main
spans from 130 to 115 ft. (40 to 35m).
Fig. lb shows a 40 ft. (12m) long
cantilevered center girder that allows the use of two 110 ft. (34m)
drop-in girders.
Fig. lc shows the end piers extending into the roadway to shorten
the effective main girder span. This
solution has been used extensively
in Canada.
Other studies. Recently, the Prestressed Concrete Institute commissioned the consulting firm of T. Y.
Lin, Kulka, Yang & Associate to
prepare a study on long span pre" "Prestressed Concrete for Long Span

Bridges," Prestressed Concrete Institute,

1968, 44 pp.

March-April 1971

stressed concrete bridges. The study

emphasized segmental construction
and the necessary joint details. This
system utilizes relatively short girder
sections that are precast at a plant
and hauled to the site where they
are either preassembled and erected
into place, or assembled as they are
being erected. To attain moment
capacity at the joints, the connections employ cast-in-place concrete
and on-site post-tensioning.
Our past experience with field
splices requiring forming, concreting
and post-tensioning has been less
than satisfactory. Also, we noted
that when construction was over
existing highways, traffic hazards
frequently resulted from the required shoring. For these and other
reasons we chose to pursue a somewhat different solution to the problem of providing long span capabilities using precast prestressed
construction.
STUDY CRITERIA

Although considerable information was already available on the

various bridge . sections being used
around the country, the question
25

260'
115'
I5!f.I5'
f 15'

(a) INVERTED A - FRAME CENTER PIER

260'

<--

110' 40
110'
110

(b) CANTILEVERED CENTER GIRDER

I60'-O'
30'----

30
100'

IIIII

(c) END PIERS EXTENDING INTO ROADWAY

Fig. 1. Span shortening systems

remained: just which section would

prove to be the most economical and
the most practical for our use? We
determined that if our solution was
to be lasting and far reaching it
must meet all of the following criteria:

Practicability
Realistic concrete strengths, 6000
psi (420 kg/cm 2) consistently, perhaps up to 7000 psi (490 kg /cm2).

26

Realistic size and weight limits

for precast girders (see Table 2).

Safety
The use of a single unit precast
section appears desirable since it
can span existing roadways without shoring. This eliminates the
inherent shoring hazards.

Esthetics
It appears desirable to eliminate
PCI Journal

Table 2. Girder size and weight limits

Condition

Weight

Size

Yard handling

No problems

80T (73,000 kg) cranes available

4-40T (36,000 kg) Drott Travel Lifts

Over-road hauling

Have hauled 130 ft.

(40m) lengthscan
go farther with rear
steering

Allowed 26k (12,000 kg) gross/axle

5 axles = 95k (43,000 kg) payload
7 axles = 130k (59,000 kg) payload

Field erection

No problems

140T (127,000 kg) cranes available

the stubby end blocks such as on

the old AASHO sections. Note the
esthetically pleasing appearance
of the end blocks on the Washington 120 Series girders shown in
Fig. 2.
Also, it seems desirable to elimi-

nate the possibility of texture

blemishes that can result from
field splices.
Economy
The cost of field splicing, in all
cases, appears to be an added cost

Fig. 2. Erecting Washington 120 Series

girders
March-April 1971

27

IE-3L 6'
X

11-8 r-

5L3"
8
6'-O
4'-6'
8
8"
-,i 2_2"1.
AASHO Type IV
70ft. - I00ft.

T
6'-O"

-' 2=4' I^AASHO Type V

90ft. - I20ft.

-I 2-4" 1AASHO Type VI

1I0ff. - I40ft
-^} 2'-4It-

4'-O "H
H_2'-O-

6'-W2' 1
5

4'-1O'1 k-5"
-1 2 O,k
-12O1
WASHINGTON 100 S WASH.120 S
IIOft. - 140ft.
12()ft.

2-2 kOREGON SECT.

I00ft - 140ft.

-^ 2' 4 IE-

-^I 2 - 4" i^-

-^ 21 4IF-

6L8")]
5L6
5

5
5
6' 0

H 2'-2"k--

--I 2'-2" I,
-COLO. G 6
100 ft. -115 ft.

28

COLO. G. 72
105 ft. - 135ft.

H 2-2H
COLO. G 80
IIOft. - 150ft.

Fig. 3. Girder sections in study

PCI Journal

that can be justified only if a

single piece section can not be
hauled over-road to the site.
Thus, the author, acting as Chairman of the Code and Specifications
Committee of the Colorado Prestressers Association, with the assistance of Mr. Eric Brinkman of
Rocky Mountain Prestress and Mr.
Stan Ruden of Prestressed Concrete
of Colorado, established a more or
less formal goal for the study: To
develop a simple span bridge girder
that will safely and economically
span 150 ft. (46 m) carrying AASHO
HS20-44 loading.
SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM

Girder Sections. Nine separate girder sections, shown in Fig. 3, were

selected for detailed study. These
included three AASHO Sections
Types IV, V and VI; two Washington State SectionsSeries 100 and
120; one Oregon Section; and three
proposed Colorado SectionsG-66,
G-72 and G-80.
Spacing and spans. From the start
we felt it was necessary to make a
cost study that compared final costs
on the basis of total bridge costs
for variable girder spacing and spans,
rather than comparing girder costs
alone. This is due to the fact that
the size of the girder section controls
other factors in the design of the
structure. Generally a relatively deep
girder is capable of carrying a great-

er "payload" moment when compared to a shallow girder for a given

span and loading. This allows the
deeper girders to be spaced farther
apart than the shallower girders and
results in fewer girders per width of
bridge, but does require a thicker
deck slab with more reinforcement.
Also, the deeper girders require
additional embankment on the roadway approaches if the minimum
clearance from girders to the roadway below is to be maintained.
Concrete strengths and type. It appeared desirable to provide for variations in material properties. Two
girder concrete strengths, f^=
6000 and 7000 psi (420 and 490 kg/
cm2), were deemed necessary. Also,
it appeared desirable to use both
lightweight concrete and stone concrete in the girders.
At this time it was assumed that
the strength of the cast-in-place deck
concrete would be the same regardless of the strength of girder concrete, and that only stone concrete
decks would be considered. It was
determined that the thickness of the
cast-in-place deck could be held
constant for a given range of girder
spacings in accordance with the
Colorado Division of Highways
Standards shown in Table 3.
Note that the effective deck thickness is taken as 1/z in. (1 cm) less than
the actual thickness to provide an
integral concrete wearing surface.

Table 3. Deck thickness vs. girder spacing

Girder Spacing
6'-6" (0.9-2.0m)
3'-0" to
8'-0" (2.0-2.4m)
6'-6" to
9'-0" (2.4-2.7m)
8'-0" to
9'-0" to 10'-0" (2.7-3.0m)
10'-0" to 12'-0" (3.0-3.7m)
March-April 1971

Deck Thickness, in.

Actual

Effective

6.0 (15cm)
6.5 (17cm)
7.0 (18cm)
7.5 (19cm)
8.0 (20cm)

5.5 (14cm)
6.0 (15cm)
6.5 (17cm)
7.0 (18cm)
7.5 (19cm)
29

Table 4. Design variable summary

Parameter

Range

Resulting Numbers
of Variables

Increment

9 Sections
-2 ft. (0.6m)
3 to 12 ft.
(0.9-3.7m)
5 ft. (1.5m)
90 to 150 ft.
Spans
(27-46m)
1.0 ksi (70 kg/cm 2 )
Concrete strengths 6.0 to 7.0 ksi
(420-490 kg/cm2)
Stone or
-Concrete types
lightweight

Girder sections
Girder spacing

9
5
13
2
2

Total number of required designs = 9 x 5 x 13 x 2 x 2= 2340

Provision for all of the above variables resulted in 2340 possible total
number of bridge and girder designs (see Table 4).
Faced with such a large scope of
desired information, we elected to
use electronic computer methods to
develop and analyze the data. Two
computer programs were developed:
1. A Universal Bridge Girder Design Chart Program
2. A Universal Bridge Costing
Program.
UNIVERSAL BRIDGE GIRDER DESIGN
CHART PROGRAM

A typical design chart is shown

in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the printout
record of input data and tabulation
of end and harping point strand
eccentricities. Fig. 6 shows a tabulation of section properties for both
the non-composite and composite
sections.
Fixed criteria. In computing the
composite section properties and in
checking ultimate strength, the effective width of the deck flange is
limited by the following in accordance with the AASHO specifica30

tions*:
1. One-fourth of the girder span
length
2. Center to center distance of
girders
3. Twelve times the least thickness (effective thickness) of the
slab plus the width of the girder
stem.
Also, the effective deck flange
width is further reduced for section
property calculations by multiplying
the initial effective width by the
ratio of the modulus of elasticity
of the cast-in-place deck concrete
to that of the precast girder. Rational values for modulus of elasticity are computed by the equation
taken from the ACI Standard Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete:

E0 = w 1.5 33

fc

where
w = unit weight of concrete (pcf)
= 28-day compressive strength
(psi)
"Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges," American Association of State
Highway Officials, Tenth Edition, 1969.
PCI Journal

V
1

C,

fp

S
fll

^.

3y

Qa
rtn,

G^
(D
9 OQ

N
N^
rt^

^!Q

C-)

w'

CL
U

SPRN IN FEET

= 3.0 KSI

FCI GIRDER = 5.0 KSI

FC GIRDER = 6.0 KSI

FC SLAB
UPSET

= 0.0 IN.

ASPHALT SURF. = 19 PSF

BOTTOM TENSION =

212 PSI

LORDING RRSHO HS-20-44

GIRDED SPRCING, PRESTRESS FORCE & CONCRETE STRENGTHS

COLO. SECTION G-80 -SILINE

RECORD (11 INPUT DATA
PRECAST CONCRETE
0 1 ;IT W11GHT
STRLNGTH
L

C-I-P COMPOSITE DECK CUNCRF TE

150.0 PCF
UNIT WEIGHT
3.0 KSI
STRENGTH
3320.0 KSI
L

PCF
150.0
6.0 KS1
4696.0
K5I

AS/STRAND
0.1531
Ft 601 PRESTRESS
23.55
F S-PR IME
270.0
N = F(CIP)/E(PHECAST)
0.707

IN-2
KIPS/STRAND
PSI
-

CREEP FACTOR
1.5
T.5D+2.5(L+I)
LOAD FACTOR
50/(L+125)
IMPACT FACTOR I
TOTAL WEIGHT CURB SIDEWALK K RAILINGS
ETC. = 0.050KLF/GIRDER

PRESTRESSED STRAND LOCATION

ECCENTRICITY-INCHES
FINAL POST,
READ. RELEPSL
FORCE
STRENGTH P
------------------F
HARPING pT.
ENDS
KIPS
ENDS - PSI

NO. OF
STRANDS
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
4U
42
44
46
48

282.6
329.7
376.8
423.9
471.0
518.1
565.2
612.3
659,4
706.5
753.6
800,1
847,8
894,9
942.0
989.1
1036.2
1083.3
1130.4

1812
2055
2298
2542
2785
3028
3272
3515
3759
4002
4245
4400
4400
4400
4400
4400
4400
4400
4400

32.32
30.82
29.69
28.81
28.11
27.54
27.06
26,65
26,31
26,00
25,74
24.57
21,99
19.68
17,60
15,72
14,00
12.44
11.01

39.13
38.05
37,84
37.68
37.55
37.44
37,35
37.28
37.21
37.12
36.96
36,83
36.70
36,59
36,50
36.41
36,27
36.13
35.99

HARPING POINT
LOCATION FROM
EACH END
0.490L
0.487L
0.485L
0.483L
0.482L
0.481L
0.480L
0.479L
0,478L
0.477L
0.477L
0,474L
0.469L
0.464L
0.459L
0.454L
0.45OL
0.446L
0.442L

Fig. 5. Typical printout of input data and strand eccentricities

Loading
Live load-AASHO HS20-44 (truck
or lane whichever governs)
Dead load-as computed accounting for:
1. Girder weight
2. Deck concrete in accordance
with Table 3
3. Diaphragms at 40 ft. (12 m)
maximum spacing. Diaphragms
are 8 in. (20 cm) thick and 1/s girder depth. (Note the slight jump
in the girder spacing curves in
Fig. 4 at 80, 120 and 160 ft. (24, 37
and 49 m) as diaphragms are
added.)

Strand
-in. dia. (1.3 cm), 270K strand,
harped near midspan. Final prestress
S2

per strand = 23.55k (10,700 kg).

1. Harping point located by the
program to envelop the moment
diagram.
2. Minimum strand spacing at the
ends of the girder set at 1 3/4 in.
(4.4 cm).
3. Eccentricity at ends located to
be maximum while meeting the
following criteria:
a. Limit tension in the concrete at the top of the
girder to 3 f'
b. Limit bottom compression
to the smaller of 0.4 f or
6

0.6 f

c. The actual hole spacing

available at the ends.
A tabulation of eccentricities vs.
numbers of strands is in Fig. 5.
PCI Journal

COLO. SECTION G-80 -STONE

C,

SECTION PROPERTIES
PRECAST GIRDER
CD

DEPTH
(IN)
90.0
PRECAS1

GIRDER WITH CDNPOSITE

GIRDER
SPACING
(FT)
3.0
3,5
4,0
4.5
5.0
s.5
c.0
6,5
6.5
7,0
7.5
N,0
8,0
8.5
9.0
9.0
9,5
10.0
10,0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0

AREA
(IN-2)
707.5

WT,/FT.
(KIPS)
0.737

Y-RUT
(IN)
39.88

I
(IN-4)
618675.0

S-TOP
(IN-3)
15420.4

S-BOT
(I -3)
15513.6

SLAP

SLAB THICKNESSPIN,
-----------------EFFECTIVE
TDTAJ
6.0
6,0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6,5
7,0
7.0
1.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
8,r)
8.0
8.0
8,0

Y-TOP
(IN)
40.12

5.5
5.5
5.5
5,5
5,5
5,5
5,5
5,5
6.0
6,0
6,0
6.0
6,5
6,5
6.5
7,0
7.0
7,0
7,5
7.5
7,5
7,5
7,5

SLAP WIDTH
EFFECTIVE
(IN)
36.0
42.0
48.0
54.0
60.0
66,0
71.0
7100
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
89.0
89.0
89.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0

YC-TOP
(IN)
38.54
37.58
36.67
35.81
34,99
34,21
33.59
33,59
32.50
32.50
32,50
32.50
31,43
31.43
31.43
30.38
30.38
30.38
29.38
29.38
29.38
29.38
29.38

YC-H(T
(I`^)

IC
(IN-4)

46,96
47,92
48,83
49.69
50,51
51,29
51.91
51,91
53,50
53.50
53,50
53,50
55.07
55.07
55,07
56,62
56.62
56.62
58.1,2
58.12
58,12
58.12
58,12

833799,9
862940.9
890564.3
916785.8
941709,7
965430.2
984339.8
984339.8
1035146.3
1035146.3
1035146.3
1035146.3
1086152.6
1086152.6
1086152.6
1136975.8
1136975.8
1136975.8
1187316.2
1187316.2
1187316,2
1187316.2
1187316.2

Fig. 6. Typical printout of section properties

SC-TOP
(IN-3)

SC-130T
(IN-3)

21635.3
22962.7
24285.0
25602.3
26914.5
28221.7
29307.2
29307.2
31850.0
31850.0
31850.0
31850.0
34559.3
34559.3
34559.3
37420.6
37420,6
37420.6
40418.9
40418.9
40418.9
40418.9
40418,9

17755,1
18008,0
18238.5
18449,6
18643.6
18822,5
18961,3
18961.3
19348,8
19348.8
19348,8
19348,8
19722,7
19722,7
19722.7
20082,1
20082,1
20082,1
20427.0
20427,0
20427,0
20427,0
20427.0

C)

C.,

rt

0)

C)

UQ

N Q
..O
N

OU

fD
N CL

6000

<p O
C) 0
rtO

O_'a
O

N
0)

ua'

LU
W
W

J
Q

2
U

W
m

W
Hcc
Q

FCI GIRDER = 5.0 KSI

FC GIRDER = 6.0 KSI

FC SLAB = 3.0 KSI

GIRDER SPACING,

ASPHALT SURF. = 19 PSF

UPSET
= O.OIN.

SPAN IN FEET

BOTTOM TENSION =

212 PSI

LORDING RRSHO HS-20-44

PRESTRESS FORCE & CONCRETE STRENGTHS

Girder spacing
Varied from a minimum of 3 ft.
(0.9 m) to a maximum of 12 ft. (3.7
m) in 6 in. (15 cm) increments. This
should insure sufficient range to
meet any desired girder spacing.
Variable criteria. The following variable criteria are input for each run
of the program:
1. Concrete strength, type and
weight for both the girder and
deck.
2. Superimposed load to allow for
the weight of curbs, sidewalks,
railings and asphalt overlay.
3. Allowable final bottom tension.
4. Minimum and maximum spans.
Charts. Each bridge girder design
chart consists of overlays of five
families of curves all plotted on axes
of initial camber vs. span.
1. Camber curveslabeled 121/2,
161/z, etc.
2. Release strength curveslabeled f = 3000, 3500, etc.
3. Initial top tension curveslabeled ZERO TOP TENSION, etc.
4. Girder spacing curveslabeled
3'-0", 4'-0", etc.
5. Girder concrete strength
curveslabeled
5000, 5500,
etc.
Design concrete strengths for both
the deck slab and the girder are
assigned (see lower left hand corner
of Fig. 4). These values are then
used in computing the ratio of E0
deck/Eu girder; in computing final
ultimate strength capacities; in determining the assigned values to be
used in computing the girder top
tension curves; and in setting the
maximum end eccentricities (handled by the automatic process within
the program).
The charts allow a designer to
pick out a complete girder design
directly from the graphs for any
combination of span and girder

f=

March-April 1971

spacing for the assigned material

and design criteria shown at the
bottom of the chart.
EXAMPLES

Some sample problems probably

best explain the use of the charts
(see Fig. 7).
Problem No. 1
Required:
Complete design for a Colorado
G-80, stone concrete girder spanning 144 ft. (44 m) with girders
spaced at 6 ft. (1.8 m) centers.
Bridge is to carry AASHO HS2044 loading.
Solution:
Number of -in. dia. 270K strand
required = 40.
Harping points and eccentricities
as in Fig. 5.
Camber at erection = 2.35 in. ( 6
cm) above level.
Release strength required for
girder, f = 3500 psi (250 kg/
cm2 ) .
Final concrete strength required
for girder, f'== 6500 psi (460 kg/
cm2).
Initial top tension in the girder
no problem.
Deck slab thickness required =
6 in. (15 cm).
Problem No. 2
Required:
For maximum allowable girder
concrete strength, f = 7000 psi
(490 kg/cm2 ) , and given a minimum girder spacing of 6 ft.
(1.8 m) , find maximum allowable
span.
Solution:
Maximum girder span = 150 ft.
(45m).
Problem No. 3
Required:.
Given a span of 116 ft. (35 m) and
a maximum allowable release
35

Table 5. Hauling costs

Hauling Rate Equipment Premium
None
130 ft. (40m) or less Standard
Steering trailer
High
Over 130 ft.
2 extra axles
Standard
130 ft. or less
Steering trailer
High
Over 130 ft.
and 1 extra axle
Girder Length

Weight
95k (43,200kg) or less
95k or less
Over 95k
Over 95k

strength of 5000 psi (350 kg/cm 2 ),

find the maximum permissible
girder spacing.
Solution:
Maximum girder spacing = 11 ft.
(3.4m).
STUDY PROCEDURE

Universal bridge girder design

charts were prepared for the nine
girder sections shown in Fig. 3
for the assigned study criteria. Material properties are shown on the
bottom of the chart in Fig. 4.
Next a standard two-span bridge
with a width of 44 ft. 6 in. (13.6 m)
(42 ft. (12.8 m) curb to curb) was
selected as a fairly typical structure.

Six different girder spacings varying

from 4 girders per bridge (11 ft. 6 in.
(3.5 m) girder spacing) to 9 girders
per bridge (5 ft. (1.5 m) girder spacing) were chosen. This permitted
final designs to be tabulated at 5 ft.
(1.5 m) increments of span length
for the six different girder spacings.
Maximum spans are limited to that
span requiring a girder release
strength of 5000 psi (350 kg/cm 2 ) or
a final girder concrete strength of
6000 psi (420 kg/cm 2 ), whichever
governs.
Cost programs. The first cost program was developed to estimate accurately the selling cost of the girder

BRIDGE QUANTITY AND COST SU14ARY

ITg4
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION
STRUCTURE BAC (FILL 1
ST1:a IPILING(10BP42)
STEELIPILING (129P53)
03NCRETE SLOPE PAVING
'STEEL IF(ANDRAIL I
'DV PPR00FING
PREM. EXPANSION DEV.
CONCRETE (CLASS A)
CONCRETE (CLASS D)
.REINFORCING STEEL
PREST. CONC.UNIT

QUANTITY
119.147 CU.YD.$3.00
433.434 CU.YD..@$3.50
120 LIN.F.T:@S6.00
884.534 LIN.FT.$7.10
67 CU.YD.S $46.00
530.5 LIN.FT.8$14.04
1306.76 S9.YD.4S0.223
126 LiN.FT.$55.00
162.607 CU.YD. $59.00
231.018 CU.YD.569.00
100558. LBS.0$0.13
18 EACH @ $ 3198.

TTAL(ESTIMATED STRUCTURE COST

AREA OF STRUCTURE (CUB-CURS)
ESTIMATED STRUCTURE COST PER SOFT.

COST
357.442
1517.02
720
6280.19
3216
7448.22
291.407
6930
9593.84
15940.2
13072.5
57564.

UNIT COST
0.035
0.1.5
0.071
0.623
0.319
0.738
0.028
0.687
0.951
1+581
1.296
5:71071

$ 122931+
10080 S6.FT.
$ 12.1955

ESTIMATED ADDED E IBANl9'1ENT COST DUE TO

BEAM DEEPER THAN AASHO TYPE-IV =: $ 1516.67

Fig. 8. Typical printout of bridge costs

36

PCI Journal

1350 R

TOTAL BRIDGE COST PER SQ. FT.

13.00 \
,^-9 (5^-0")

12.50 \\
Uo
07

12.00

(5'-6)

11.50
J
J

(6'-611)

11.00
10.50

6(7-6")

4
''
Girders / \ \^^
10.00 Bridge
(1I-6" Spa.)
9.50

80

-- 5(9'-0)

OPTIMUM GIRDER SPACING

COST CURVE

100 110 120125- 130 140 150

SPAN LENGTH, FEET
Fig. 9. Bridge costs for a Colorado G-80 girder
90

delivered to the job site and erected

in place.
Yard selling cost. No problem since
we already had considerable costing
experience for similar members.
Hauling costs. Varied according to
a schedule that provided for both
extreme lengths and extreme
weights in accordance with Table 5.
Erection costs. Varied according to
weight:
1. Light girders, 100k (45,500 kg)
or lessstandard cost
2. Heavy girders, over 100kpremium cost.
Total bridge costs. We next developed a program that included the
abutment and center pier design for
a typical 90 deg. crossing for each
March-April 1971

bridge in accordance with the Colorado Division of Highways Standards. The program computes all
the necessary quantities, extends the
unit costs and develops a total cost
per square foot. All unit costs, with
the exception of girder costs, are in
accordance with the latest tabulation of yearly cost averages prepared annually by the Colorado Division of Highways with a provision
to include a suitable escalation multiplier. See Fig. 8 for a typical printout of the costing program.
The effect of added embankment
costs are shown near the bottom of
Fig. 8. The additional embankment
costs are relative to an AASHO Type
IV girder with a depth of 4 ft. 6 in.
(1.4m).
37

TOTAL BRIDGE COST PER : SQ. FT.

/ AASHO
:-TYPE

I TYPEHy ?/
TYPE _^
OJ

12.50

12.00
f^
L

GIRDER WT.
= 130 K L

1.50 ^_^
/

10.50

^^

f /I / ' 0 COLO. G-80

/1

GIRDER WT '
130K^

i%

^^

COLO. G -72y^^

NOTE:

^^// ALL GIRDERS SHOWN HAVE

SAME CONCRETE PROPERTIES

f,i=5.Oksi
/
f6.Oksi
f'cslab 3.0 ksi

STONEi
/^ WASHINGTON

-- \^-^-^
10.00 OREGON
120 SERIES
G -72
9.50

''

80

90

100 110

120 130 140 150 160

SPAN LENGTH, FEET

Fig. 10. Optimum girder spacing cost curves for seven stone concrete girders

TOTAL BRIDGE COST PER SQ.FT.

COLO.

COLO. G -80
LIGHTWEIGHT
STON
STO STONE
/
COLOJ

12.50

G-80

1 2.00

LL 11.50

11.00

10.50

"-COLO.G-80

n
o10.00
9.50

LIGHTWEIGHT

80 90
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

SPAN LENGTH, FEET

Fig. 11. Optimum girder spacing cost curves for one girder type with variable
concrete properties
38

PCI Journal

OPTIMUM GIRDER SPACING

COST CURVES

Using the data generated from the

two cost programs above, curves
showing total bridge costs vs. span
are plotted for the various girder
spacings studied.
A sample plot for a Colorado G80 girder is shown in Fig. 9. When
the end points on each spacing curve
are connected, a smooth curve is
formed that represents costs for optimum girder spacing. For example,
if a span of 125 ft. (38m) were required, we could use a girder spacing of 8 ft. 3 in. (2.5m) most economically.
For each type of girder, the best
economy was achieved when optimum girder spacing was used, that

COLORADO G-80
L,__., 1

is, when the girder spacing was kept

to a maximum for a given span. This
optimum girder spacing cost curve
was found to be uniquely suitable
for comparing costs on all the various girder sections studied.
RESULTS

Optimum girder spacing cost

curves were developed for stone
concrete girders for all nine cross
sections studied for fixed material
criteria of:
f
f',

girder = 6.0 ksi (420 kg/cm2)

girder = 5.0 ksi (350 kg/cm2)
slab = 3.0 ksi (210 kg/cm2)

Seven of these curves are plotted

in Fig. 10 for easy comparison.
We also prepared curves for light-

COLORADO G-80 A

A11

V2"

6'-E

March-April 1971

Fig. 12. Comparison of Colorado girder sections

39

A
O

LU

o C

C)

CD
...o,

CD

J
o

wL7

LL
Q

a
w

W
W
CC
Ci o

oa?.
DQ

00

00

rt
_
p )

CD Q.

Cn

90
p6

n n

_ W

_n
oQ.

= 6.0 KSI

FC GIRDER

FCI GIRDER = 5.0 KSI

= 3.0 KSI

FC SLAB

170
160
150

UPSET

PSF
0.0 IN.

ASPHALT SURF. = 20

232 PSI

RRSHO HS-20-44
BOTTOM TENSION =

LORDING

PRESTRESS FORCE & CONCRETE STRENGTHS

SPAN IN FEET

130
140
110
120

GIRDER SPRCING9

BO
100
90

I BO

TOTAL BRIDGE COST PER SQ. FT.

12.50

COLO. G-80 STONE

i

12.00

11.50
6

ii . 00

I
WASJ
12
;_j//

NOTE:
ALL GIRDERS SHOWN HAVE
SAME CONCRETE PROPERTIES
fCi=5.Oksi
f^=6.Oksi
fcsIab=3.Oksi

Cr 10.50

p 1 0.0
9.50

II

'
COLO. G-8O

160
170
110
120
100
130
140
150
80
90

SPAN LENGTH, FEET

Fig. 14. Optimum girder spacing cost curves for three stone concrete girders

weight concrete girders (110 pcf)

(1760 kg/m3) for the Colorado G80 using the same girder and slab
strengths. Next we investigated the
effects of increasing the concrete
strengths in the girder and slab by
1000 psi (70 kg/cm 2) for both stone
and lightweight girders. These results are shown in Fig. 11. Curves
7 and 8 are for concrete strengths of:
f
f^

f'

girder = 6.0 ksi (420 kg/cm2)

girder = 5.0 ksi (350 kg/cm2)
slab = 3.0 ksi (210 kg/cm2)

Curves 9 and 10 are for concrete

strengths of:
girder = 7.0 ksi (490 kg/cm2)
girder = 5.5 ksi (390 kg/cm2)
f slab = 4.0 ksi (280 kg/cm2 )
Our first surprise came when we
observed that the Washington 120
Series girder (represented by Curve
f

f,

March-April 1971

5, Fig. 10), which is 73 1/2 in. (1.87 m)

in total depth, was almost as efficient as our proposed Colorado G80 (Curve 7), which was 80 in.
(2.03 m) total depth. We had a 9
percent increase in depth but only
a 2 to 3 percent increase in span
capability.
After a careful study of the design charts for both the Colorado
G-80 and the Washington 120 Series
girders, we observed that the controlling criteria for maximum span
for the Colorado section was always
the final concrete strength required
for the girder, f = 6000 psi (420
kg/cm2)see design chart, Fig. 4.
The maximum release strength criteria, f = 5000 psi (350 kg/cm2),
never controlled. In reviewing the
design chart for the Washington 120
Series girder, it was noted that this
section was better "balanced". Re41

lease strengths controlled the shorter

spans and final girder concrete
strengths controlled the longer
spans. It soon became evident that
the Colorado G-80 was an "unbalanced" section. The bottom flange
contained too much concrete relative to the top flange. The cross
section of the girder was modified
to arrive at a more "balanced" sectionthe Colorado G-80A. A comparison of the cross-sections of the
two girders is shown in Fig. 12.
The design chart for the G-80A
girder is shown in Fig. 13. Note
that the revision in the shape or
"balance" of the cross-section (actually resulting in a slight reduction in
cross-sectional area) yields a span
increase of about 10 ft. (3 m) . Its
optimum cost curve, Curve 11, is
compared to the Colorado G-80 and
the Washington 120 Series girders

in Fig. 14.
SUMMARY

Drawing from the information developed in this study, the Colorado

Division of Highways has adopted
a new Colorado standard girder section, the G-68. This is an intermediate depth girder capable of spanning about 130 ft. (40 m) . Following
general use of this section, a second
standard, the G-80 (actually using
the cross section of the study's G80A), will be introduced.
Girder design charts providing for
various combinations of concrete
strengths, external superimposed
loads, and wearing surface systems
have been prepared for the G-68
and are now being used for preliminary designs by the Colorado
Division of Highways.
A new girder section has been
born.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Please forward your discussion to PCI Headquarters
by July 1 to permit publication in the July-August 1971 issue of the PCI JOURNAL.
42

PCI Journal