Anchor: #i1015072

Section 2: Structure Type

Anchor: #i1015077

Superstructure

Selecting an appropriate superstructure type is a critical factor in the planning and design process. District design engineers, area engineers, or their consultants usually make the choice of superstructure type, as they prepare the preliminary bridge layouts.

The following figures illustrate the most common superstructure types currently used by TxDOT:

The figures show the economical and practical span limits, and some advantages and disadvantages of each superstructure type.

In some cases the district may have a preference for certain structure types. If there is any doubt as to the proper design for the situation, district personnel should contact the bridge project development manager or the director of Bridge Design for assistance in determining structure type and span lengths.

Currently, over 30,000 bridges and bridge class culverts exist on the state highway system. The most common types of superstructure in use, and a quantity breakdown, are shown in "Types of Superstructure and Quantity Breakdown of On-System Bridges in Texas (FY 2000)" table to further aid in selecting a superstructure type.

 Cast-in-Place, Simple Slab Span (see following
explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to
view this illustration in PDF.) (click in image to see full-size image) Anchor: #i1008653

Figure 5-1. Cast-in-Place, Simple Slab Span (see following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to view this illustration in PDF.)

Anchor: #i1015190

Explanatory notes for Figure 5-1

Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Minimum depth for short spans

2. Ease of design and detail

3. Aesthetic for small stream crossings

1. Deck joints at each bent

2. Complicated for skews over 15 degrees

3. Not the most economical solution

4. Requires formwork support

5. Limited span length



Cast-in-Place, Continuous Slab Unit (see
following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to
view this illustration in PDF.) (click in image to see full-size image) Anchor: #i1008782

Figure 5-2. Cast-in-Place, Continuous Slab Unit (see following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to view this illustration in PDF.)

Anchor: #i1015206

Explanatory Notes for Figure 5-2

Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Absolute minimum depth

2. No deck joints

3. Aesthetic for small stream crossings

1. Limited to 30 degree skew

2. Not the most economical solution

3. Limited span length

4. Requires formwork support



Cast-in-Place, Pan Form Spans (see following
explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to
view this illustration in PDF.) (click in image to see full-size image) Anchor: #i1008855

Figure 5-3. Cast-in-Place, Pan Form Spans (see following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to view this illustration in PDF.)

Anchor: #i1015222

Explanatory Notes for Figure 5-3

Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Absolute minimum cost for short spans

2. Standard details available

3. No shoring required

1. Limited span capabilities

2. Tendency to maintenance problems

3. Not aesthetically pleasing



Prestressed – Precast, I-Beam
Slab Span (see following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to
view this illustration in PDF.) (click in image to see full-size image) Anchor: #i1008945

Figure 5-4. Prestressed – Precast, I-Beam Slab Span (see following explanatory notes) (Online users can click here to view this illustration in PDF.)

Anchor: #i1015238

Explanatory Notes for Figure 5-4

 

Beam Type

Span (ft)

A

B

C

IV

VI (MOD)

45

3.167

3.667