Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1999, P I , N o . 3
Sept., l-9
For many years most of the major river bridges in lndla have been constructed as free cantllever concrete box girder bridges wlth spans of
approximately 120 m. The present paper presents an overview of the development of a cable stayed bridge, wlth due conslderatlon to local
condltlons, which has shown to be competltlve to the normal girder brldge option even with a main span of more than twice the normal. It
Is expected that the present design may form basls for new bridges to be constructed across the major rivers In India.
The Yamuna River is a tributary ofthe Ganga River. A new bridge will The Yamuna separates the city of Allahabad on the north bank from
be built across the Yamuna very near the holy site at the confluence Naini on the southern bank. The existing road which links Allahabad
of the Yamuna and the Ganga, between the cities of Allahabad and to National Highway 27 crosses the Yamuna on a combined railway
Naini. and road bridge, built about 100 years ago. This old bridge has
Initially the project was based on concrete box girderswith 120 m inadequate capacity with regard to traffic and structural strength.
spans for the deep-channel portion of the bridge. However, a new A new river crossing has to cater for a large volume of traffic between
feasibility study was launched to explore larger cable-stayed span Allahabad and Naini, due to the industrial growth of Naini. It will also
alternatives. A number of cable-stayed bridge solutions with differ- provide an important intra-state link to the cities of Mirzapur and
ent span lengths and materials for the deck (concrete/steel/ Varanasi. The project location is shown in Figure 1.
composite) were studied and compared costwise with the original The project preparation was earlier carried out by Consulting
concrete box girder solution. Also, other technical/economical Engineering Services(lndia) Ltd, New Delhi (CES). A solution with
aspects were studied, such as harp stay systems versus semifan large-depth box girders to be erected by free cantilevering of 120 m
stay systems. spans for the deepchannel portion of the river was prepared. Figure
Based on the results of the feasibility study, it was concluded that 2 shows the general arrangement of the two solutions.
a semifan cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 260 m and Subsequently, the Ministry of Surface Transport (MOST) received
concrete deck would be the optimum solution forthe deep-channel a loan from OECF, Japan, and engaged Cowl-SPAN JV for a
portion of the river, and consequently this solution was adopted for supplementary feasibility study and detailed design, and DRC
the detailed design stage. Consultants, USA, and CESfor a proof check.
The solution developed in the detailed design comprises a slen-
der concrete deck with two longitudinal beams (1.37 m high and Feasibility studies
1.4 m wide) and a deck slab (0.25 m thick and 26 m wide). The
Objective
cable stays are galvanized locked coil ropes with fork sockets at
The objective of the new studies was to explore the feasibility of
the upper pylon top anchorages. The pylons will protrude about
larger-span alternatives in concrete or steel. A large-span alternative
90 m above the river, and will be diamond-shaped concrete structures
could be a guide for future bridges crossing wide rivers in India.
resting on double D-shaped well foundations (size 10 x 20 m)
projecting about 40 m below the river bed.
Bridge alternatives
The design of the bridge has been based on CEB-FIP Model Code
1990. However, for foundation design and live loads from traffic and The river was notionally divided into a deep-channel portion
wind, current Indian standards have been used. (approximately 600 m wide) and a shallow-channel portion
Ganga-Yamuna
confluence
\
Fig. 1 Location map (2) Concrete alternative: span arrangement 14S320-145 m. The
larger-span alternative proved to be approximately 21% costlier
than alternative 1 with the main span of 260 m finally adopted.
( 3 ) S t e e l a l t e r n a t l v e : s p a n a r r a n g e m e n t 60-115-260-
(approximately 500 m wide) to include flood plains. II!&60 m. A steel solution with an orthotropic steel deck was
Feasibility studies for module 1 (the part of the bridge crossing considered. The cost estimate showed the steel solution to be
the deepchannel portion of the river) have been carried out for the approximately 26% costlier than alternative 1 with the concrete
following alternatives. deck finally adopted.
(1) Concrete alternative: span arrangement 60-115-260- (4) Composlte deck alternative: span arrangement 60-11%260-
115-60 m. Different solutions with different types of pylons with 11!%60m. The composite solution had a concrete deck and
semifan or harp cable stay arrangement in a single or double plane longitudinal girders and cross-girders of steel. The cost estimate
have been investigated. A pylon (Figure 3) with a double in-plane showed the composite solution to be approximately 19% costlier
semifan cable stay arrangement and deck section as shown in Figure than alternative 1 with the concrete deck finally adopted.
4 was found to be economically the best solution (see the section
entitled ‘Optimal solution’).
Optimal solution
The requirement of 260 m as a minimum for the central span
arose to accommodate the horizontal navigational clearance of The principal criterion for selection of the optimal solution was
240 m corresponding to two 120 m spans of the CES proposal. Two derived from specifications of ‘terms of references’ requiring an
60 m end spans were introduced, because the anchor stays are ‘optimum, aesthetically pleasing and feasible preliminary design’.
distributed on both sides of the anchor piers to reduce bending The harp cable stay system and the semifan cable stay system were
moments in the critical partsof the 115 m spans. Furthermore, the compared. The semifan cable stay arrangement proved to be 15%
weight of the 60 m spans results in the avoidance of upward forces cheaper than the harp cable stay arrangement.
in the anchor piers. Finally, the southern 60 m span gives a good The weight of the bridge deck was a deciding factor for choosing
transition to the following spans in module 2 (the part of the bridge the cross-section, because an increase in weight would increase
crossing the shallow-channel portion of the river). the cable stay cost, which was estimated to be of the order of 40%
2 I-I--
0 m 13spansof25m=325m spans 7 of 60 m = /45
420 m m,
PI5 P16 PI7 PI6 P I 9 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P26 A2
(a)
1640 m
t
I/ Exp. joint
Fig. 2 General arrangement of (a) the cable-stayed solution and (b) the box girder solution
0
Veje et al.
Cost estimates
26000
I
Yamuna Cable Stayed Bridge at Allahabad, India
Deslgn criteria
The design of the concrete structureswas based on CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990. For the foundation design, Indian Standards and Codes
were applied.
Loads
,I./ ,I1:. :.
(e) Wind. IS 875 (Part 3)-1987 is the basis for wind loads:
l For the finished bridge the basic wind speed (peak gust
I*., 900 ::: I
velocity for a 100 year return period averaged over about 3 s 4 '..I I ‘\ 4
.,* *-*
in 10 m height) is V, = 47 m/s. / I...-
...
\ .*. I ‘\
I. . ' 300 iii,
l For determination of dynamic effects, the hourly mean wind /I .,.
I. . .
. . . . II
...
‘\
speed has been used. Check of flutter is based on a wind I, ‘1
1000 ii;; , >
3 i ! 1;;: _ *.
speed of 1.45 times the hourly mean wind speed at the girder .*.I
:: 2)
/' ,fii I \.\ 3
level.
i I...
:;I
300
350
iii'
:::I ‘\
For stages during construction, wind with a return period of
l
I I
1998 11 I
12
1
I In I I I I
Wells and
- - - well caps
Pier - --_
shafts --._
4
5 /\ 15 m bridge
2000 8 / \deck
I 7
8
#. I Monsoon
12 / \
1 /
2 / \Bridge d e c k
3 / \
4 Closure /
5 joint at PI8 \
2001 8 Closure joint 1
7 at mid-span
8 Monsoon
9
Structural design - the design is based on cylinder strength fck, because the CEB-
FIP model code is based on cylinder strength (Table 2).
Concrete structures. Reference is made to CEB-FIP Model Code
l CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, clause 6.2.2.2: the coefficient 0.85,
1990. which allows for the influence of long-term heavy loading (which
l Exposure class: 2a. is excluded by the stress limitations below) is changed to 1.0.
0 Cover to reinforcement: 50 mm. l Partial factors r, (values in brackets are valid for accidental
l Design crack width: load cases):
- reinforced concrete structures: 0.30 mm - concrete: r, = 1.5 (1.2)
- prestressed concrete structures: 0.20 mm - reinforcement: r, = 1.15 (1.0).
Load combinations in serviceability limit states (SLSs) for l Relative humidity = 60%.
frequent situations are used for a check of crack widths. l Relaxation: strands in relaxation class 2 (low relaxation) are
l Concrete strengths: used for tendons.
- cube strength fC,cube will be used for material control . Load combinations for various situations are listed in Tables
3-5.
l Friction during tensioning of tendons:
Table 2 Cube and cylinder strengths for concrete
Stage1
"
P15 P16 P17 PI8 P19 P20
Closure joint
Stage 4
Fig. 7 Construction method for the cable-stayed bridge deck of module 1 tion with a full live load. Fifty per cent higher cable stay forces
are allowed for in case of rupture of any of the cable stays.
Table 3 General load combinations Table 4 Load combinations for in-service situations
Permanent Loads A 0 C D
Dead load (G) 1.0/1.25 1.0/1.25 1.0/1.25 1.0
Shrinkage and creep 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Permanent loads
(SC) Dead load (G) 1.0/1.35 IO/l.35 1.0/1.35 1.0/1.35
Earth pressure (E) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shrinkage and creep 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Prestressing (P) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (SC)
Hydrostatic load (H) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E a r t h p r e s s u r e (E) 1 . 0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable loads Prestressing (P) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Wind load(W) 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 Hydrostatic load (H) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water current (WC) 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.5 Variable loads
Temperature (T) 0 0 0 0.5 Traffic load (LL) 1.5 0.8 0 0.8
Temporary construction 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 Longitudinal forces (LF) 0.8 1.5 0 0.8
loads (TL) Wind load(W) 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.8
Water current (WC) 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5
ULS. ultimate limit state
(b)
Foundations