关 键 词：

益阳 资江三桥南 引桥 施工图 设计

资源描述：

益阳资江三桥南引桥施工图设计,益阳,资江三桥南,引桥,施工图,设计

内容简介：

长沙理工大学桥梁工程专业 2011 届毕业设计 施 工 图土木与建筑学院桥土 0702 班：欧 强二 O 一一年六月 长沙理工大学桥梁工程专业2011届毕业设计 益阳资江三桥南引桥益阳资江三桥南引桥 施 工 图 土木与建筑学院桥土土木与建筑学院桥土 0702 班班：欧欧 强强 二二 O 一一一一年六月年六月 图 名预应力混凝土连续梁桥桥型布置图预应力混凝土简支T梁桥桥型布置图双飞燕式拱桥桥型布置图支座钻孔灌注桩配筋图主梁构造图伸缩缝主梁预应力钢筋布置图桥面铺装钢筋图主梁普通钢筋图泄水管一般构造图系梁钢筋图栏杆构造图图 号BS-01BS-02BS-03BS-04BS-05BS-06BS-07BS-08BS-09BS-10BS-11BS-12BS-13目 录一. 说明书二. 图纸序 号12345678910111213目 录 一. 说明书 二. 图纸 序 号 图 名 图 号 1 预应力混凝土连续梁桥桥型布置图 BS-01 2 预应力混凝土简支 T 梁桥桥型布置图 BS-02 3 双飞燕式拱桥桥型布置图 BS-03 4 支座 BS-04 5 钻孔灌注桩配筋图 BS-05 6 主梁构造图 BS-06 7 伸缩缝 BS-07 8 主梁预应力钢筋布置图 BS-08 9 桥面铺装钢筋图 BS-09 10 主梁普通钢筋图 BS-10 11 泄水管一般构造图 BS-11 12 系梁钢筋图 BS-12 13 栏杆构造图 BS-13 U形桥台台身采用7.5号浆砌块石； 桥面铺装采用8cm厚沥青混凝土。预应力钢筋采用fj15标准强度为1860MPa的高强度、低松弛钢绞线，公称直径为15.24mm，公称截面积为140mm，弹性模量E=1.95 10 MPa。精轧螺纹钢筋，公称直径为32mm，弹性模量E=2.0 103.普通钢筋 R235、HRB335钢筋标准应符合GB13013-1991和GB1499-1998的规定。凡钢筋直径大于等于12mm者，采用HRB335热轧带肋钢筋；凡钢筋直径小于12mm者，采4.钢材均采用 A3 钢，技术标准必须符合 GB700-79 的规定，选用的焊接材料应符合GB1300-77或GB981-76的要求，并与所采用的钢材材质和强度相适应。5.锚具采用OVM15-10、OVM15-15型连接器和OVM15-10、OVM15-15型锚具及Dywidag接器（GB/T14370-2000）的规定。6.预应力管道采用预埋波纹管成型。7.支座55MPa。说 明 书一概况益阳资江三桥南引桥设计为预应力混凝土连续箱梁结构，设计应符合技术先进、安全可靠、适用耐久、经济合理的要求，同时应满足美观、环境保护和可持续发展的要求。2.预应力钢材二设计标准1.设计跨径：540m2.设计荷载：公路-I级3.桥面宽度：净17.5m4.通航等级：无5.桥上纵坡为双向2% 6.不考虑地震及漂流物撞击作用用R235热轧光圆钢筋。三采用规范1.公路工程技术标准 JTJ001-882.公路桥涵设计通用规范 JTG D60-2004 3.公路钢筋混凝土及预应力混凝土桥涵设计规范 JTG D62-20044.公路桥涵地基与基础设计规范 JTJ024-855.公路砖石及混凝土桥涵设计规范 JTG D61-2005 6.公路桥涵施工技术规范 JTJ041-89锚，选用的预应力锚具及其配套相关产品应符合国家标准预应力筋用锚具、夹具和连四主要材料1.混凝土 现浇连续箱梁采用C50混凝土； 墩柱、横系梁及承台采用C30混凝土； 桩基、人行道、栏杆采用C25混凝土； U形桥台基础采用C20块石混凝土；第1页共2页桥梁支座应符合公路桥梁板式橡胶支座（JT/T4-93）、公路桥盆板式橡胶支座（JT/T391-99）及球型支座技术条件（JT/T17955-2000）的有关规定。8.伸缩缝采用D80型伸缩装置。9.护栏桥梁内外侧都采用钢筋混凝土组合式护栏。10.其它砂、石、水的质量要求应符合公路桥梁施工技术规范(JTJ041-89)的有关规定。五设计要点本桥为五跨一联的等截面预应力混凝土连续箱梁桥（540m），采用满堂支架施工。对于超静定连续梁桥，在施工过程中不断发生体系转化，因此采用 midas 仿真模拟，分阶段进行计算。计算中除设计荷载外，还考虑了温度、支座沉降、混凝土收缩徐变产生的次内力。1.上部构造横截面布置采用单箱单室的箱形截面，箱梁顶宽17.5m，底板宽12.5m，梁高2.6m。跨中处箱梁顶板厚度25cm，腹板厚度50cm，底板厚度40cm。在腹板与底板相接处设置45cm45cm梗腋，腹板与顶板相接处设置135cm45cm梗腋，以减少应力集中，提高截面的抗扭和抗弯刚度。各跨箱梁在支点、纵向连接截面、纵向连接对称截面、跨中截面各设一道横隔板以抗畸变变形。2.下部构造桥址处底层从下往上依次为中等风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、弱风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、强风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、粉质粘土，地基稳定，无不良地质现象。通过水文分析，地下水对混凝土无侵蚀性。下部结构依据墩高分别采用柱式桥墩和空心薄壁墩，基础采用钻孔灌注桩。桥台为重力式U形桥台。第2页共2页第 1 页 共 2 页 说说 明明 书书 一概况 益阳资江三桥南引桥设计为预应力混凝土连续箱梁结构，设计应符合技术先进、安全可靠、适用耐久、经济合理的要求，同时应满足美观、环境保护和可持续发展的要求。 二设计标准 1.设计跨径：540m 2.设计荷载：公路-I 级 3.桥面宽度：净 17.5m 4.通航等级：无 5.桥上纵坡为双向 2% 6.不考虑地震及漂流物撞击作用 三采用规范 1.公路工程技术标准 JTJ001-88 2.公路桥涵设计通用规范 JTG D60-2004 3.公路钢筋混凝土及预应力混凝土桥涵设计规范 JTG D62-2004 4.公路桥涵地基与基础设计规范 JTJ 024-85 5.公路砖石及混凝土桥涵设计规范 JTG D61-2005 6.公路桥涵施工技术规范 JTJ 041-89 四主要材料 1.混凝土 现浇连续箱梁采用 C50 混凝土； 墩柱、横系梁及承台采用 C30 混凝土； 桩基、人行道、栏杆采用 C25 混凝土； U 形桥台基础采用 C20 块石混凝土； U 形桥台台身采用 7.5 号浆砌块石； 桥面铺装采用 8cm 厚沥青混凝土。 2.预应力钢材 预应力钢筋采用j15 标准强度为 1860MPa 的高强度、低松弛钢绞线，公称直径为15.24mm，公称截面积为 140mm，弹性模量 E=51.95 10MPa。精轧螺纹钢筋，公称直径为 32mm，弹性模量 E=52.0 10MPa。 3.普通钢筋 R235、HRB335 钢筋标准应符合 GB13013-1991 和 GB1499-1998 的规定。凡钢筋直径大于等于 12mm 者，采用 HRB335 热轧带肋钢筋；凡钢筋直径小于 12mm 者，采用 R235 热轧光圆钢筋。 4.钢材 均采用 A3 钢，技术标准必须符合 GB700-79 的规定，选用的焊接材料应符合GB1300-77 或 GB981-76 的要求，并与所采用的钢材材质和强度相适应。 5.锚具 采用 OVM15-10、 OVM15-15 型连接器和 OVM15-10、 OVM15-15 型锚具及Dywidag锚，选用的预应力锚具及其配套相关产品应符合国家标准预应力筋用锚具、夹具和连接器 （GB/T14370-2000）的规定。 6.预应力管道 采用预埋波纹管成型。 7.支座 第 2 页 共 2 页 桥梁支座应符合公路桥梁板式橡胶支座 （JT/T4-93） 、 公路桥盆板式橡胶支座（JT/T391-99）及球型支座技术条件 （JT/T17955-2000）的有关规定。 8.伸缩缝 采用 D80 型伸缩装置。 9.护栏 桥梁内外侧都采用钢筋混凝土组合式护栏。 10.其它 砂、石、水的质量要求应符合公路桥梁施工技术规范(JTJ041-89)的有关规定。 五设计要点 本桥为五跨一联的等截面预应力混凝土连续箱梁桥（540m） ，采用满堂支架施工。对于超静定连续梁桥，在施工过程中不断发生体系转化，因此采用 midas 仿真模拟，分阶段进行计算。计算中除设计荷载外，还考虑了温度、支座沉降、混凝土收缩徐变产生的次内力。 1.上部构造 横截面布置采用单箱单室的箱形截面，箱梁顶宽 17.5m，底板宽 12.5m，梁高 2.6m。跨中处箱梁顶板厚度 25cm，腹板厚度 50cm，底板厚度 40cm。在腹板与底板相接处设置45cm45cm 梗腋，腹板与顶板相接处设置 135cm45cm 梗腋，以减少应力集中，提高截面的抗扭和抗弯刚度。各跨箱梁在支点、纵向连接截面、纵向连接对称截面、跨中截面各设一道横隔板以抗畸变变形。 2.下部构造 桥址处底层从下往上依次为中等风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、弱风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、强风化变余冰碛砂砾岩、粉质粘土，地基稳定，无不良地质现象。通过水文分析，地下水对混凝土无侵蚀性。下部结构依据墩高分别采用柱式桥墩和空心薄壁墩，基础采用钻孔灌注桩。桥台为重力式 U 形桥台。 Niagara CantileverFrancis E. Griggs Jr.1Abstract: The first modern metal cantilever bridge in the United States, using erection methods that were to be utilized in most futurecantilever bridges, was by C. C. Schneider across the Niagara Gorge in 1883. The Niagara, saw in order, John Roeblings RailroadSuspension Bridge, Samuel Keefers Honeymoon Suspension Bridge, Edward Serrells Lewiston-Queenston Suspension Bridge,Schneiders cantilever, Leffert Bucks arch bridge at the falls as well as Bucks arch built under Roeblings suspension bridge. Schneidersbridge had a useful life of over 40 years during a period when rolling stock on the railroads was increasing rapidly. The speed of erectionof a new style bridge coupled with its performance makes it one of the most innovative and significant bridges built in the world at thetime.DOI: 10.1061/ASCE!1084-07022003!8:12!CE Database keywords: Bridges, cantilever; Niagara River; Bridges, suspension; Bridges, railroad; History.Introduction Bridges at NiagaraThe Niagara River gorge had long separated the United Statesfrom Canada. In the early part of the century Francis Hall, a manwho claimed he had worked with Thomas Telford on the designof his Menai Straits suspension bridge, proposed a suspension abridge at Lewiston-Queenston in 1824. In 1836, he proposed an-other bridge just above the falls. The latter proposal was for aroadway to pass from the Canadian shore by a SuspensionBridge of 990 feet span, to an Island in the Niagara River, fromthence by a Tunnel under the bed of the river 500 yards in lengthto Goat Island; passing over the same by a common road to asecond Suspension Bridge of 594 feet span, to the Americanshore In Evidence 1836!. This was a very ambitious plan thatwas beyond the state of the art for suspension bridges at the time.A committee of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada sub-mitted a report on this proposal stating that such a project wouldtake away from the beauty of the falls and instead suggested abridge at Queenston or at the whirlpool, where the shores ap-proach each other very closely, where good abutments could beformed and stone easily procured Stuart 1871!. A chain bridgeat this site they wrote, would perhaps combine the magnificentwith the useful, as future Rail Roads could be brought to it. InEvidence 1836!.The gorge, varying in depth up to 239 ft, also varied in widthbetween 800 and 1,000 ft between the falls and Lewiston. In1845, Charles B. Stuart, then working on the location of the GreatWestern Railway in Canada, was looking for a way to connect hisline with the Rochester and Niagara Falls branch, which was laterto become part of the New York Central. He proposed spanningthe gorge with a suspension bridge just above the whirlpool.Many thought his idea foolhardy as the only suspension bridgesin the United States, other than some Finley bridges left overfrom the early part of the century, were Charles Ellets FairmountBridge over the Schuylkill River built in 1842 and John A. Roe-blings suspension aqueduct built across the Allegheny River in1845. The English gave up on the use of suspension bridges forrailways after Captain Samuel Browns attempt failed on theStockton and Darlington Railway in the 1820s. Stuart, however,did not share this belief and decided to send a circular letter to anumber of the leading Engineers of America and Europe, askingtheir opinion of the undertaking. Of those who responded onlyfour thought the project feasible. Stuart wrote, Charles Ellet, Jr.,John A. Roebling, Samuel Keefer and Edward Serrell, alone fa-vored the project. Stuart 1871!. Ellets response stated in partIn the case which you have presented, I can, however, saythis much with all confidence: A bridge may be built acrossthe Niagara below the Falls, which will be entirely secure,and in all respects fitted for railroad uses. It will be safe forthe passage of locomotive engines and freight trains, andadapted to any purpose for which it is likely to be ap-plied.To build a bridge at Niagara has long been a favoritescheme of mine. Some twelve years ago I went to inspectthe location, with a view to satisfy myself of its practica-bility, and I have never lost sight of the project since. I donot know in the whole circle of professional schemes asingle project which it would gratify me so much to con-duct to completion. Stuart 1871!.Roebling respondedI have bestowed some time upon this subject since the re-ceipt of your letter, and have matured plans and workingdetails. Although the question of applying the principle ofsuspension to railroad bridges has been disposed of in thenegative by Mr. Robert Stephenson, when discussing theplan of the Britannia Bridge over the Menai, on the Chesterand Holyhead Railway, I am bold enough to say that thecelebrated Engineer has not at all succeeded in the solutionof this problem. That a suspension bridge can be built toanswer for a railroad, is proven by the MonongahelaBridge. The greater the weight to be supported, the stron-ger the cables must be, and as this is a matter of unerringcalculation, there need be no difficulty on the score of1Director of Historic Bridge Programs, Clough, Harbour & AssociatesLLP,IIIWinnersCircle,Albany,NY12205.E-mail:fgriggsNote. Discussion open until June 1, 2003. Separate discussions mustbe submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by onemonth, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possiblepublication on August 7, 2001; approved on January 20, 2002. This paperis part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1,2003. ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2003/1-211/$18.00.2 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003strength. The only question which presents itself is: can asuspension bridge be made stiff enough, as not to yield andbend under the weight of a railroad train when unequallydistributed over it; and can the great vibration which resultfrom the rapid motion of such trains, and which prove sodestructive to common bridges, be avoided and counter-acted? I answer this in the affirmative, and maintain thatwire cable bridges, properly constructed, will be foundhereafter the most durable and cheapest railroad bridge forspans over one hundred feet. Stuart 1871!.Based upon these responses a charter was given to the NiagaraBridge Company by the state of New York and by the ProvincialParliament in 1846. By 1847, sufficient funds had been raised toretain an engineer and start construction. In February 1847, Elletsubmitted another proposal statingImmediately after inspecting the site, in eighteen hundredand forty-five, I gave the whole subject a careful investiga-tion, and made a fair, but not extravagant, estimate of thecost of such a structure as I thought would be appropriateand of adequate strength.This estimate amounted to two hundred and twentythousand dollars for a railroad bridge competent to sustainthe weight of locomotive engines and heavy freight trains,and one hundred and ninety thousand dollars for one suit-able for common travel, with a railroad track in the center,to be crossed by passenger and burthen cars drawn byhorses.When I made my estimate, I had in view a work of thefirst order, and as I do not wish to be in any way connectedwith one of a lower grade, I cannot offer to reduce myproposition. But I will now repeat, that a secure, substantialand beautiful edifice, not one however, equal to the claimof the localityfor nothing can match thatbut a noblework of art, which will form a safe and sufficient connec-tion between the great Canadian and the New York rail-ways, and stand firm for ages, may be erected over theNiagara river for the latter sum named. Stuart 1871!.Ellets proposal was accepted, with modifications, on Novem-ber 9 for the sum of $190,000. The span was 800 ft with a deckwidth of 28 ft. The deck had two carriageways, two footways, andone railway track in the center of the floor. Ellet started by build-ing a 9-ft wide suspension walkway over the gorge to service theconstruction of the permanent bridge. There are several great sto-ries concerning Ellet in the construction of this bridge. One has todo with him offering anyone five dollars if they could fly a kiteover the gorge and have it land on the other side so he could usethe kite line to pull successively larger strings and ropes acrossthe gorge. Another tells about his first ride across the gorge in aniron basket shortly after he succeeded in pulling a wire cableacross. The last story has him driving his horse across the tempo-rary bridge, before he had attached the railing, at a break-neckspeed. Ellet, was indeed, flamboyant!Later in the year, however, Ellet had a disagreement with thedirectors respecting the application of tolls taken on the foot-bridge, which after some litigation, ended by a compromise, andEllet relinquished his contract; and his work terminated on thetwenty-seventh of December, eighteen hundred and forty-eightStuart 1871!. Roebling took over the project in 1850 when heoffered to build the bridge for $180,000 and subscribe to $20,000in bridge company stock. He changed his design from a single-deck structure to a double-deck structure with the railway on thetop level and the carriage and footways on the lower deck. This isthe scheme that Squire Whipple suggested in his work on bridgebuilding published in 1847 Whipple 1847!.By the late 1840s, Roebling completed four aqueducts of theDelaware and Hudson Canal and another bridge at Pittsburghacross the Monongahela River and was bidding on the KentuckyRiver High Bridge. In the meantime, as well, Edward Serrellspanned the gorge with a bridge 1,043 ft long connectingLewiston, N. Y., and Queenstown, Ontario. It blew down in awindstorm in 1864 after the stabilizing cables had been loosenedduring an ice jam the preceding winter. His other competitor,Samuel Keefer, would also build a bridge across the gorge but notuntil 1869. Work would not commence on the Niagara projectuntil 1852 with Roebling providing all engineering services in-cluding design as well as construction supervision. His companyalso supplied a significant amount of the wire to be used in thebridge. He completed his 820-ft span, double-deck bridge in1855. The one-track railroad ran on the upper deck 22 ft wide!and pedestrians and carriages passed on the lower deck 15 ftwide!. This bridge, under the supervision of L. L. Buck, withstrengthening of the anchorages and cables and replacement ofthe towers from stone to iron and side trusses from wood to iron,lasted until 1899 when it was replaced by a steel arch built byBuck.After traveling across the bridge Mark Twain commented that. . . you drive over to Suspension Bridge and divide yourmisery between the chances of smashing down two hun-dred feet into the river below, and the chances of having arailway-train overhead smashing down onto you. Eitherpossibility is discomforting taken by itself, but, mixed to-gether, they amount in the aggregate to positive unhappi-ness Gies 1963!.In his final report to the board, Roebling proudly statedOne single observation of the passage of a train over theNiagara Bridge, Fig. 1# will convince the most skepticalthat the practicality of suspended railway bridges, so muchdoubted heretofore, has been successfully demonstrated.Bridges of half a mile, for common or Railway travel, maybe built, using iron for the cables, with entire safety. But bysubstituting the best quality of steel wire, we may nearlydouble the span, and afford the same degree of securityRoebling 1855!.The only other railroad bridge crossing the Niagara was theso-called International Bridge near Black Rock, a suburb of Buf-falo. The bridge was built on the Whipple Double Intersectionpattern in 1873 by the Grand Trunk Railway. The Michigan Cen-tral used this bridge but they were looking for a bridge of theirown across the gorge.Niagara CantileverIn 1874, T. C. Clarke, of the Clark & Reeves Company andlater Phoenix Bridge and Union Bridge Companies, wasasked by the manager of the Western Railway of Canada to. . . report on the best mode of construction, necessary timerequired, and cost of a double track iron bridge. The sitehad been selected by John Kennedy, M. Am. Soc. C. E.Engineer Member, ASCE# of the Great Western Rail-way. The site selected was 300 feet below the presentsuspension bridge. The distance across the water and atthe top of the cliffs were such that it was deemed prudent tolocate the masonry piers below 430 feet apart, and the totalJOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 3length of the bridge was 825 feet and the height abovewater 235 feet Clarke 1885!.He stated that he thought that they the railroad owners! expectedsome form of an arch bridge. Clarke proposed four alternatives asshown in Fig. 2.Clarke recommended the fourth design which was a bracedarch, hinged in the center and at the springing. The clear span was430 feet, and the height or versed sine 175 feet. The arches wereto have been erected by corbeling out as was done at St. LouisClarke 1885!. The corbeling out procedure, now called cantile-vering, was adopted by Captain James Eads in his famous bridgeover the Mississippi River that opened in 1874 with three spans ofover 500 ft. After completing the bridge Eads said that if he had itto do over again he would use arches as Clarke recommended.In 1882, the Michigan Central Railroad was finally ready tobuild its own bridge at a site near the suspension bridge. OnOctober13,1882,theyrequestedCharlesConradC.C.!Schneider Fig. 3! to submit a proposal. They wanted an esti-mate for a double-track railroad bridge of 900 feet clear span, forthe purpose of ascertaining the probable cost of bridging the Nia-gara below the Falls, near the Railroad Suspension Bridge, inti-mating that a braced arch reaching from cliff to cliff might be theproper design for the proposed structure Schneider 1885!. Withmany more prominent engineers around why did they pickSchneider?Schneider was born in Apolda, Germany, and received his en-gineering education at the Royal School of Technology at Chem-intz, Germany. After graduating in 1864 he worked as a mechani-cal engineer before immigrating to the United States in 1867.Upon arrival he went to work for the Paterson Locomotive Worksfor four years before going to work for the Michigan Bridge andConstruction Company in Detroit. This was probably his first pro-fessional involvement with bridges, structures that were to occupymost of his career. After two years he went to work for the ErieRailroad in New York City. Here he worked for Octave Chanutewho designed the Kansas City Bridge, the first bridge over theMissouri River in 18671868. In addition, George Morison, whoworked with Chanute on the Kansas City Bridge, was there asChanutes principal assistant engineer. It is interesting that allthree would later become presidents of ASCE. During that period,Morison would replace the famed wooden Portage Bridge overthe Genesee River near Rochester, New York, that had burneddown. He designed, fabricated, and erected a new iron bridgeready for traffic in 6 weeks, a remarkable feat even for those days.Fig. 1. Niagara Suspension Bridge4 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003While with the Erie one of his Schneiders# duties was to checkthe strain sheets and plans submitted by bridge companies.Bridge work up to this time had usually been let on a competitivelump-sum basis. Mr. Schneider soon found that this method wasunsatisfactory, and the Railroad Companys officials decided tomake their own plans; and it was Mr. Schneiders duty to preparethem. Schneider 1917!In 1875, Schneider went with Chanute, who was selected asone of the Board of Engineers, to review proposals for a bridge atBlackwells Island over the East River in New York City. Whilereviewing these proposals, some of which were for cantilevers, hewas exposed to the possibilities of cantilever construction. Keepin mind that C. Shaler Smiths Kentucky River High Bridge, thefirst American cantilever, would not be finished for 2 years. Afterleaving this position he went to work for a year with the DelawareBridge Company under Charles Macdonald, probably due to thefact that Macdonald won the Blackwells Island competition withthe cantilever design shown in Fig. 4.Macdonald was one of the chief proponents of cantilever con-struction in the United States. During that period, the DelawareBridge Company had an agreement with the Edgemoor Iron Com-pany, the same firm which would fabricate and erect the KentuckyRiver High Bridge, to fabricate all their bridges. Schneider wasstationed at the Edgemoor Company where he designed and su-pervised construction of several bridges including the RockvilleBridge over the Susquehanna River for the Pennsylvania Railroadand the Cohoes Bridge over the Mohawk River on the Delawareand Hudson Railroad Schneider 1917!. Even though SmithsKentucky River High Bridge was completed before Schneiderbegan his tour at the Edgemoor Iron Company he would have hadaccess to the drawings that were on file for Smiths bridge. It isnot known, of course, if he saw the drawings or not, nor is itknown if he developed his plans for the Niagara Bridge withSmiths bridge in mind.In 1878, at the age of 35, and 11 years after arriving in theUnited States, he set himself up in business as a civil engineer inNew York making a specialty of designing and superintendingbridges and structural work for buildings. From 18791883 hewas associated with Morison on his Plattsmouth, Bismarck, andBlair Bridges across the Missouri River as well as his SnakeRiver Bridge at Ainsworth, Washington. His mentors, Fig. 5, hadbeen some of the most renowned bridge engineers of the age.Later, on his own again, one of his first large clients was theCanadian Pacific Railway, which was racing westward in compe-tition with Jim Hills Great Northern Railroad that ran along thenorthern boundary of the United States less than 100 mil south ofthe Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific, under the strong handof William Cornelius VanHorne, reached Port Moody in BritishColumbia in 1886 and Vancouver the following year thus winningthe race by several years. One of the decisions they made to winthe race was to build many of their bridges out of wood.Schneiders first job was to design wooden Howe trusses for theFig. 2. T. C. Clarkes proposed Niagara BridgesFig. 3. C. C. SchneiderJOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 5line. One of his most famous was the Stoney Creek Viaduct in theSelkirk Mountains, one of the mountain chains between the Rock-ies and the Pacific Ocean. As seen in Fig. 6, the piers as well asmost of the trusses were made of wood. The only iron used wasthe wrought-iron verticals and miscellaneous bolts and plates.Even though built of wood and considered a temporary bridge itsurvived until 1893 when it was replaced by a steel arch bridgedesigned by Schneider.He had also been given the design for an iron bridge, just westof his Stoney Creek Viaduct, over the Fraser River. This riverflowed southerly into Puget Sound just north of the United Statesborder. It was a fast flowing stream that precluded the placementof falseworks in the riverbed. Schneider, based upon his previousexposure to the Blackwells Island Bridge competition andSmiths success at the Kentucky River High Bridge, decided todesign and build this bridge using the cantilever technique.He completed his design of the 525-ft span, located 125 ftabove the river in the spring of 1882. The directors of the linedecided to have the iron rolled and fabricated in England. Canadahad not as yet developed its own iron and steel industry to anysignificant degree so they were forced to go to England for theiriron since tariffs on American iron were very high. An Engineer-ing News and American Contract Journal notice of May 19,1883, statedFig. 4. Blackwells Island winning designFig. 5. a! Octave Chanute, b! George Morison, and c! Charles Macdonald6 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003The First English-Built Bridge of True American Type hasjust been finished at Gateshead, England. It is an iron pin-connected bridge, of one 315-ft span and two 195-ft spansfrom the design of C. C. Schneider of New York, and in-tended for the crossing of the Fraser River in British Co-lumbia Engineering News 1883!.Due to the slowness of delivery of the Fraser River Bridge ironit reportedly took almost 6 months for the ship carrying the ironto Canada to make it across the Atlantic! it, Fig. 7! would not becompleted until 1887. It lasted until 1910 when it was taken downand reerected, one of the beauties of a pin-connected structure,across a chasm appropriately called the Niagara Ravine on abranch of the Canadian Pacific near Victoria, B. C.Lets return to the Niagara Bridge. Schneider, upon receivingthe request, based upon his previous visits to Niagara, originallythought that a hinged arch, to be erected on the cantilever prin-ciple, would be the proper design. Schneider 1885!. In otherwords, based upon available information, he agreed with Clarkesreport of 1875. It is not known, even though it is probable,whether he had access to Clarkes report at the time. Upon receiv-ing more exact topographic information he decided that the can-tilever plan would be most feasible and economical for this loca-tion. Schneider 1885!. He submitted his completed design,Fig. 8, to the Central Bridge Works of Buffalo, New York, who inturn submitted a tender to the Niagara Bridge Company. As wascustomary at this time, the railroad directors asked their consult-ing engineer, Charles Fisher, chief engineer of the New York Cen-tral and Hudson River Railroad, to review Schneiders plans.After Fishers approval, the tender was accepted by the Board ofDirectors on April 11, 1883.On April 26, 1883, at a meeting between Schneider, CorneliusVanderbilt, and James Tilinghast, president and vice-president re-spectively of the Niagara Bridge Company, he was appointedchief engineer, and requested to take charge of the work imme-diately Schneider 1885!. Once again, based upon better infor-mation, he modified his pier locations changing the span lengthsof components of the cantilever. He also decided to use wroughtiron instead of steel:.as time was a very important factor in this work andhaving been convinced by previous experience of the un-certainty of obtaining steel of satisfactory quality in soshort a time as was needed for this work.he! concluded tolimit the use of steel to pins and heavy compression mem-bers, such as tower posts, center posts, compression-chordsand end posts of the cantilevers Schneider 1885!.He alsodecided to use a double intersection pattern for the cantile-vers, although he! does not ordinarily advocate double in-tersections. It is done, however, in this case, to have anintermediate support for the posts, some of which are verylong and had to be made in two sections; and also, withreference to convenience of manufacture, to shorten theeye-bars for the main ties Schneider 1885!.Fig. 6. Stoney Creek ViaductFig. 7. Fraser River BridgeFig. 8. Original plan of Niagara BridgeJOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 7Whipple first used the double-intersection pattern in metal forhis 147 ft span 1853 railroad bridge in West Troy, New York. Itwas also the pattern that Morison, with Schneiders help, used forhis Missouri River Bridges and Smith had used for his KentuckyHigh River Bridge cantilever.With his structure fixed in span lengths, he now had to designhis foundations. The banks on both sides of the river have aslope of about 45 degrees from the waters edge to about 50 feetbelow the top of the cliff, above which they are verticalSchneider 1885!. At the base of the river the sloping banks ofthe river.consist of a mass of large boulders and broken rocksfrom the hard limestone layer which forms the upper stratum,mixed with earth and debris Schneider 1885!. He hoped to digbelow this material and find solid bedrock. But he found the layerto be very deep. He decided to level off the rock in the footingarea, clean out the voids as best he could, and fill them withconcrete, then called beton Coignet. He did this to a level 11 ftabove the river and built a 37.8-ft high masonry pier on the con-crete base, Fig. 9.After completing the concrete work and starting the masonrya question came up regarding the stability of the foundationsSchneider 1885!. The directors wanted assurance that the foun-dation proposed was adequate. Fisher was called in once again aswas E. H. Phelps, chief engineer of the Michigan Central, toanswer the question. They stated that they were not perfectlycertain of the stability of said foundations Schneider 1885!.Another board of experts was called in consisting of Morison,Macdonald, Theodore Cooper, John Wilson, and A. W. Stedman,to assure the directors that the foundation was safe. Morison andMacdonald wroteWe consider that this mass of hard boulders which owethere present stability to gravity, forms a foundation whosestability is second only to rock in position, and extending atan approximately uniform level across the river; and weconsider such a foundation very much safer and morestable than a foundation of a stratified rock rising abruptlyfrom the water. We consider that the plans for these foun-dations which have been adopted are to all intents and pur-poses the same that we would have selected if the work hadbeen placed in our charge. We should recommend you,without hesitation, to proceed with construction of yourbridge on the plans now in use Schneider 1885!.The other three consultants wroteTaking all things into consideration, we are of the opinionthat the foundations as now projected are as secure as canbe had at this place; as any future changes in the riverwhich would affect the integrity of the proposed founda-tions, would in all probability equally affect any other foun-dation which could be constructed in this mass of naturalrip-rap. After considering the subject in all its bearings, ourjudgement is that there is no good reason for changing thefoundations as now projected Schneider 1885!.The anchorages for the shore arm of the cantilever were builton top of the bank so they were on sound, hard rock. They weredesigned to have a weight 3.25 times as much as they would becalled upon to resist the overturning effect of the cantilever armsand suspended span. With the foundations in place, Schneidernow started work on his structure.He had decided to use iron piers just as Smith had done at theKentucky River High Bridge. Unlike Smith, however, he broughthis ironwork piers up in parallel planes, in a direction perpendicu-lar to the axis of the bridge. Smiths ironwork converged near theFig. 9. Plan of foundationFig. 10. Diagonal omitted at pier8 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003top so that each of his trusses rested on a single pin supported bythe pier. Schneiders approach would suggest, at first glance, thathis structure would be indeterminate, as each cantilever wouldhave three supports, the anchorage and two supports over thepiers. Schneider got around this indeterminacy by.omitting the diagonals in panel BC, it is evident that noother strains can be transmitted between B and C than mo-ments; the points of support being practically reduced to 2,and the shearing strain in panel BC becoming 0, the strainsbecome well defined and can be determined with precisionSchneider 1885! Fig. 10!.He next addressed his method of controlling temperature strains.He wroteIn order to eliminate the temperature strains in the shorearms of the cantilevers the supports at A must be movablehorizontally. To accomplish this, the shore ends of the can-tilevers are supported on rockers, consisting of short links,capable of resisting tension as well as compression, hingingon pins that rest on pedestals, and are anchored to the ma-sonry Schneider 1885! Fig. 11!.In the suspended span he handled temperature effects by re-quiring that in the finished structure the members DE, FG, HI,and KL are put in, but have oblong pin-holes at the points E, G,H, and K, so that a limited longitudinal motion can take place atthese points Schneider 1885! Fig. 12!.Schneider took great care in ensuring that all iron and steel,particularly the steel, met specifications. His experience hadshown that with steel for structural purposes which had to bemade according to a specification, there have always been con-siderable delays, and this case was no exception to the rule. Therecords of the tests will show that the steel that has been acceptedwas of a good uniform quality. There were 245 heats made by theSpang Iron and Steel Company, of which 109 heats were acceptedand 136 heats rejected Schneider 1885!. With his design com-plete and quality of material acceptable, the fabrication of thestructure took place in the yards of the Central Bridge Company.The erection technique worked out by Central Bridge Com-pany and Schneider became the pattern that would be followed onmany cantilevers in the future. They started by building theirtowers and anchor spans from falsework resting on the rockbanks. Then they designed and built two travelers to erect the restof the bridge. The travelers were to work outward on each canti-lever until they reached the end of the cantilever span, Fig. 13.The suspended span was 120 ft long and the maximum reachof each traveler was 40 ft. Schneider did not want the traveler togo beyond the end of the cantilever span, as he did not want tooverload the span or anchorage. This left 40 ft of suspended spanthat could not be erected by the travelers. He handled this byplacing wooden beams across the 40-ft gap and erecting the restof the truss by hand methods.The speed at which the bridge was erected was as impressive.Schneider wroteThe first metal of the cantilever shore arm on the Americanside was placed on the falseworks on September 25th, anderection completed on October 15th. The erection of thecantilever shore arm on the Canadian side was commencedon October 8th, and finished on October 22nd. The traveleron the American side was completed on October 25th, anderection of the river arm (cantilever) commenced on Octo-ber 28th. The traveler on the Canadian side was completedon October 31st, and erection of the river arm commencedon November 4th. The last connection was made on No-vember 22nd, at 11:55 A.M. Schneider 1885!.The travelers and falsework were removed and the first trackFig. 11. Anchorage detailFig. 12. Suspended span detailJOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 9laid on December 6. The formal opening and testing took place onDecember 20, 1883. The bridge contained almost 4.5 millionpounds of iron and steel, with about 70% of it being wrought iron.What Schneider and Central Bridge, under their Superintendent ofErection, S. V. Ryland, had done was to erect a new style bridgeover 900 ft long and 230 ft over the Niagara River in less than 2months. The entire Niagara project, which started with foundationwork on April 15, took only slightly more that 8 months to com-plete. It is hard for us in the early part of the twenty-first centuryto appreciate the speed at which our nineteenth century counter-parts worked. The bid price for the entire project was $680,000.The load test was scheduled for December 20 with a commit-tee of Morison, Macdonald, Cooper, and Thomas Ridout selectedto oversee the process. The weather was bad and the crowds solarge that the committee determined that the accuracy of the testwas disturbed and suggested another test at a later date. The testwas conducted in early June with the board writingIn conclusion, we wish to say that the behavior of thebridge under the test made on June 9th and also under thetest of December 20th, so far as the latter could be ob-served! was a satisfactory one, and we consider the NiagaraCantilever Bridge a successful example of what may betermed a novel system of construction. While recognizingthe fact that cantilever bridges have been built before, andhave been advocated by able engineers for many years, wethink it fair to say that we know of no other structure inwhich the distinguishing features of the cantilever havebeen so fully carried out in the details which exemplifyAmerican principles of construction. We congratulate youupon the successful completion of the structure Schneider1885!.In a discussion of Schneiders paper to the Transactions,ASCE, Clarke wrote the Niagara Bridge is of better design thanthat at the Kentucky River, inasmuch as it makes its piers fixedpoints, and allows the trusses to expand and contract in eachdirection from them as centers while the Kentucky Bridge re-quires a movement of its piers, and the necessity of rollers underthem, to provide for the difference in lengths due to changes intemperature of its central span Clarke 1885!. Henry Wilsonwrote the situation at Niagara which was selected for the newrailroad bridge appears peculiarly adapted to a cantilever design,and Mr. Schneider seems to have worked out his problem withgreat ability. The Englishman, Charles Douglas Fox, wrote itappears to me that this bridge is one in every respect adapted forits purpose; admirably designed, both generally and in detail; andcarried out with remarkable rapidity. Benjamin Baker whowas in the process of building his Firth of Forth Cantilever wroteFig. 13. Traveler and erection sequenceFig. 14. Niagara Bridge10 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003the execution of the works of the Niagara Bridge in so short atime was a feat of which engineers and contractors of any countryin the world might well be proud.Gustave Lindenthal wno wasstill 27 years away from the reconstruction of the Kentucky RiverHigh Bridge wrote Mr. Schneiders Fraser River Bridge hassome points of excellence which are not in the Niagara Bridge.They are the solid stone piers on which the cantilevers are sup-ported at only one point, presumably having a roller bearing onthe pier, and the single diagonal system instead of the doublediagonal as in the Niagara Bridge Clarke 1885!.Macdonald and Morison must have been proud of their pro-tege. The maximum deflection at the end of the cantilever underthe worse positioning of two trains consisting of two locomotivesand cars loaded with gravel was just less than 9 in., which wasstrictly in accordance with the laws of the structure, and as theyshould be Schneider 1885!.Schneider wrote a paper entitled The Cantilever Bridge atNiagara Falls to the Transactions, ASCE, November 1885, de-scribing his bridge in great detail. He won the prestigious Row-land Prize for this paper in 1886. The article was also reproducedin a series of articles in the English journal, Engineering, in 1886Schneider 1886! and in the German journal Zitschrift Des Vere-ines Deutscher Ingenieure on May 17, 1884, Schneider 1884!.He was a long-time member of the latter professional society. It isstill interesting, however, that the first publication was in a journalof his homeland, Germany. The American engineering journalssuch as Scientific American 1883!, Engineering News andAmerican Contract Journal 1884, 1888!, and the Railroad Ga-zette, also carried lead articles on the bridge during its construc-tion. There is little doubt that his bridge was known almost im-mediately around the western world as a result of thesepublications. This bridge, Fig. 14, along with Smiths KentuckyRiver High Bridge, placed American engineers in the vanguard ofiron-bridge building in the world. The cantilevers along with thelong simple-span trusses built by Linville, Fink, and Morison,served as models for the rest of the world and American bridgesbuilt with pins were to spread everywhere, with the exception ofEngland.A colleague, from the soon to be formed American BridgeCompany, wrote Mr. Schneider without question stood at thevery head of his profession and, in addition, I believe, never hadan enemy in his entire life. I say this from intimate personalcontact extending over a peri