J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 1

DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC SURCHARGE MODELS FOR

HIGHWAY STRUCTURES
J Shave, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
T Christie, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
S Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
A Kidd, Highways Agency, Bedford, UK
Abstract
Models have been developed to represent the horizontal load surcharges on abutment walls,
wing walls and other earth retaining structures due to traffic loads. These models have been
developed based on an analysis of the global and local effects of the traffic loads in the UK
National Annex to BS EN1991-2, and are different from the uniform pressure approach of
BD37
[1]
.

The recommended approach for abutments is based on the application of a horizontal uniform
load together with knife-edged loads at the surface. For other structures such as wing walls a
different is approach is needed, involving superposition of the effects of wheel loads. These
models have been incorporated into PD6694-1
[2]
for structures subject to traffic loading and
designed to BS EN1997-1.
Notation
All notation is based on the definitions of PD6694-1, BS EN 1991-2 and its National Annex.
Introduction
This paper describes the development of requirements as included in PD6694-1
[2]
for the
modelling of horizontal surcharge effects caused by the vertical traffic loading applied to the
carriageway behind abutments, wing walls, side walls and other parts of the bridge in contact
with earth.

Before the introduction of Eurocodes, the standard approach for designing highway structures
for traffic surcharge effects in the UK followed the requirements of BD37/01
[1]
, which
specified a vertical live load surcharge behind an abutment of 10kN/m for HA loading and
20kN/m for 45 units of HB loading (BD 37/01 5.8.2). This vertical load was typically
converted into a horizontal earth pressure for design using an appropriate earth pressure
coefficient, K. The validity of the BD37/01
[1]
surcharge loads is somewhat questionable. The
10kN/m vertical surcharge for HA loading first appeared in BS153
[3]
, when it was
approximately equivalent to the uniformly distributed load (UDL) component of HA loading
over a 4.5m loaded length. However, the localised effects that would normally have been
modelled with the knife edged load (KEL) component of HA loading were not included, and
the magnitude of the surcharge loading was not updated to align with subsequent increases in
allowable traffic weights.

J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 2

The 20kN/m surcharge load that was intended to model 45 units of HB does not seem to be
consistent with the magnitude of the HB load model (a single bogey for 45 units of HB had an
average surface pressure of around 130kN/m, which is 6.5 times greater than the 20kN/m
surcharge load).

The uniform pressure method of BD37/01
[1]
also does not realistically represent the
distribution of pressures on the wall due to vehicle loading; the pressures should be more
concentrated towards the top of the wall (this will be demonstrated later in the paper, based on
a variety of analytical methods). With the implementation of Eurocodes it was necessary to
develop rational models for surcharge based on the traffic loading specified in the UK
National Annex to BS EN 1991-2 and satisfying the requirements of BS EN 1997-1. The new
surcharge models as stated in PD6694-1 and described in this paper were developed to
properly account for surcharge effects, and are more realistic and also more onerous than the
past practice as specified in BD37/01.
Traffic Load Models in BS EN 1991-2
The traffic loading for the carriageway behind abutments and wingwalls and other parts of
structures in contact with the earth is covered by BS EN 1991-2, 4.9.1, and defined in the UK
National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.34. For normal traffic, the load model in Figure 1 is
used in place of Load Model 1 (in this paper for convenience we refer to the load model in
Figure 1 as the equivalent LM1 vehicle). The SV and SOV load models (as defined in UK
National Annex to BS EN 1991-2, NA.2.16) may also be required.

75
kN
65
kN
65
kN
115
kN
1.2m 3.9m
0.4m
0
.
4
m
2
.
0
m
1.3m


Figure 1. Load model for normal traffic (equivalent LM1 vehicle)

The axle loads in Figure 1 must be multiplied by an overload factor of 1.5 and a dynamic
amplification factor (DAF) of 1.4, although for effects below the surface the National Annex
allows the DAF for this vehicle and the SV and SOV vehicles to be reduced linearly to unity
at a depth of 7m below the surface. (This slow rate of reduction is much more conservative
than allowed in the UK assessment standard BA55
[4]
and the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code CSA-S6
[5]
which both reduce the DAF to a minimum value at just 1.5m below
the surface.) For vehicles in lanes other than lane 1, the loads should also be reduced by a lane
factor as defined in BS EN 1991-2.

J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 3

If the vehicle weights (including the overload factor and the DAF) are assumed to be
uniformly distributed over the plan area of the vehicle (or axle group) the resulting average
vertical pressures at surface level are as given in Table 1. These are considerably higher than
the 10kN/m for HA loading and 20kN/m for HB loading specified in BD 37
[1]
.

Average pressure under one equivalent LM1 vehicle 36 kN/m
Average pressure under rear pair of equivalent LM1 axles 98 kN/m
Average pressure under trailer of the SV196 vehicle 56 kN/m
Average pressure under trailer of SOV vehicles 66 kN/m
2

Table 1. Approximate average pressures for vehicle loads.
Surcharge Analysis Methods
There are a number of theoretical methods that can be used for the analysis of surcharge
pressures. These methods vary in approach, from some that are based on elastic properties
(Boussinesq
[6]
) to others that are based on slip failures in the soil (Coulomb wedge analysis
[7]
,
Williams and Waite
[8]
) and also including some empirical and semi-empirical methods
(BD37
[1]
, CP2
[9]
). Another family of methods is based on the approach of first modelling the
distribution of vertical stresses in the soil adjacent to the wall (there are various ways to
attempt this) and then multiplying these by an earth pressure coefficient, based on the theory
of Rankine
[10]
to calculate horizontal earth pressures.

Unfortunately there is apparently no single method that alone provides a high level of
confidence in modelling the soil and its interaction with the structure accounting for its non-
linear behaviour. For this reason and also to explore the sensitivity of the results to the method
used, a variety of methods were considered in developing the simplified surcharge models.

This paper focuses on the following analytical methods, illustrated in Figure 2:
- Coulomb wedge analysis
[7]
to iteratively determine critical horizontal thrust
- Rankine method
[10]
based on elastic vertical pressures from Boussinesq analysis
[6]

- CIRIA C580
[11]
method based on Williams and Waite
[8]
.

Development of a Surcharge Model for Abutments
Global effects
The theoretical effects of the equivalent LM1 vehicle, the SV vehicles and the SOV vehicles
have been considered using the analytical methods in Figure 2, assuming an abutment wall
crossing the carriageway. The analysis generally predicts a significant concentration of
pressure at the top of the wall, as illustrated in Figure 3 for the equivalent LM1 model and the
Rankine
[10]
/Vertical Boussinesq
[6]
method.


J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 4



(a) Coulomb wedge analysis
Q
z R
r
Q
z R
r
o
v
| o
h
t
o
h
o
h
o
v
o
v
o
v
| o
h
t
o
v
| o
h
t
o
h
o
h
o
v
o
v
5
3
2
3
R
Qz
v
t
o =
(b) Rankine with vertical Boussinesq

(c) CIRIA C580
Figure 2. Surcharge analysis methods
G
earth

Q
vehicle

N tan|
N P
h
P
h
tano
B
A
Q
vehicle
G
earth
N tan|
N
P
h
tano
P
h
Polygon of forces
o
|

h
= K
a

v
where K
a
= (1 - sin|)/(1 + sin|).
J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 5


Figure 3. Distribution of pressures for normal (equivalent LM1) loading
(based on K
a
applied to vertical Boussinesq pressures)

A simple and convenient method for comparing the global effects of the various methods has
been used, where envelopes of the total shear force caused by one lane of traffic loading have
been plotted at intervals down a simple cantilever wall. The results of this comparison are
illustrated in Figure 4 for a |
d
angle of 33 degrees (K
a
=0.3). The diagram for SOV vehicles is
based on the most onerous SOV vehicle configuration, although similar results are obtained
for shorter SOV vehicles.

Figure 4 includes the effects of reducing the DAF with depth. For the Rankine/Boussinesq
and C580 methods, the pressures were calculated based on the DAF at each depth and then
integrated to find the shear force. For the Coulomb wedge method
[7]
this approach was not
directly possible, and so the live loads were multiplied by the DAF, with the DAF based on
the depth a third of the way down the wedge being considered. For comparative purposes, the
effects of the self weight of the earth have subsequently been subtracted from the Coulomb
wedge results.

Figure 4. Comparison of shear forces caused by surcharge loading
Peak pressure
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

s
u
r
f
a
c
e


s
u
r
f
a
c
e


J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 6

As seen in Figure 4, the global effects for a lane of vehicle loading according to these models
can be reasonably modelled by a shear force of 200kN (660K
a
kN) at the top of the wall
increasing linearly with depth. Hence the preliminary form of the surcharge model for global
effects was developed in the form of a horizontal knife edged load (KEL) at the top of the
wall of 660K
d
kN combined with a horizontal uniformly distributed load (UDL) with a
magnitude of 20K
d
kPa for normal loading, 30K
d
kPa for SV196 and 45K
d
kPa for SOV
loading, where K
d
is the design value of K
a
for flexible walls or K
0
for rigid walls, based on
|
d
. The effects of SV100 were slightly less onerous but similar to SV196 (the SV 100 vehicle
is identical to part of the SV196 vehicle) and SV80 loading were found to be slightly less
onerous than normal loading. For design it was considered reasonable to have three levels of
loading, corresponding to (i) normal loading or SV80 loading, (ii) SV196 or SV100 loading,
and (iii) all SOV vehicles.

Figure 4 shows that the C580 method did predict higher pressures than the preliminary model
for the SV and SOV vehicles at greater depths, however it was considered that the C580
method was probably more appropriate for small concentrated loads near the wall and could
be rather conservative when applied to large vehicles with many axles extending far from the
wall. (The other methods considered were generally insensitive to loads further than about H
from the wall.)
Local concentrations of pressure and short walls
Aside from the global effects of each lane of traffic loading, there can be some intense peak
local pressures associated with wheel loads. These local pressures may be particularly
important for segmental structures where high localised earth pressures could be applied to a
single precast unit. The Rankine method with vertical Boussinesq pressures was used to
investigate the distribution of local peak pressures. These are illustrated in Figure 5 for the
example of a SV 196 vehicle with equivalent LM1 vehicles in adjacent lanes.

As seen in Figure 5, the local peaks in pressure are mainly confined to the top few metres of
soil. This effect may conveniently be modelled using an adjustment to the application of the
KEL component of the model that was previously described for global effects. From an
analysis of the effects on the most critical metre strip for a variety of load configurations it
was found that the model shown in Figure 6 could be used to determine both global and local
effects. By applying the KEL component over two 1m-wide strips at the edges of the lane, the
effects of the local pressures were adequately modelled.

J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 7


0
100
200
300
400
500
600
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Distance along wall (m)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)

z = 0.3m
z = 0.5m
z = 0.7m
z = 1.0m
z = 0.9m

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Distance along wall (m)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)

(
k
P
a
)

z = 1.5m
z = 2.5m
z = 3.5m
z = 4.5m
z = 5.5m
z = 6.5m
z = 7.5m

(a) Pressures in top 1m of soil (b) Pressures from 1.5m to 7.5m depth

Figure 5. Horizontal pressures for SV196 flanked by equivalent LM1 vehicles using the
Rankine / Boussinesq method


F oh
Normal Loading
For normal loading in lanes other than
lane 1 these loads may be reduced
using the lane factor in EN1991-2
330Kd kN/m 20Kd kPa

For lane widths Weff narrower than 3m
this should by increased by a factor
3m/Weff.
SV 100 or SV196 Loading 330Kd kN/m 30Kd kPa
SOV Loading 330Kd kN/m 45Kd kPa

J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 8

Figure 6. Horizontal surcharge loading model (characteristic values)
Transverse structural distribution
The loads in Figure 6 may be used to model the effects of surcharge loading accounting for
the distribution of pressures in the soil. However, for stiff laterally continuous walls the
structure itself will have a further influence in distributing the effects of localised pressure
concentrations. While the loads in Figure 6 would be appropriate for a complete model of the
structure that accounts for the structural distribution, they may be rather conservative for a
unit strip approach that neglects the structural distribution. Such an approach is a popular
calculation design method for some structure types, and so a further adjustment factor has
been developed to account for transverse distribution to allow the model to be used in
conjunction with a unit strip approach without undue conservatism.

Finite element models were generated to simulate concrete walls of various wall heights and
thicknesses. The models were loaded with the pressures generated by the Rankine /
Boussinesq method. In general, the results of these analyses indicated that the moments and
shears in the walls were almost uniformly distributed across the width of the walls (except at
the very top), and that the localised effects of pressure concentrations did not have a
significant effect on the distribution of structural effects.

By comparing the results of the analyses for walls of various heights, the degree of structural
distribution was investigated. This investigation suggests that for a metre strip analysis of a
vertically spanning transversely stiff wall, the moments and shears caused by the KEL
component F of the loads in Figure 6 may be reduced by the empirically determined
factor (1+0.5z)/(1+z), where z is the depth below the top of the wall. However, this factor
should not be taken as less than 2/3 (which corresponds to the KEL component of total width
2m becoming uniformly distributed over the 3m wide lane). The effects of the UDL
component o
h
should not be reduced.
Buried structures
The use of a horizontal KEL at surface level to represent the concentration of loading near the
surface is an appropriate simplification for structures that are not buried. However, the
influence of the concentration of pressures may also affect buried structures where the top of
the structure has less than 2m depth of fill. A reduction factor has been developed to be
applied to the KEL component F, with the form of the factor based on approximating the
pressures in the top 2m to a triangular distribution, as shown in Figure 7. The triangular
distribution is consistent with the parabolic variation in shear force towards the top of the wall
that can be seen in Figure 4. Hence for structures where the top of the structure is buried but
at a depth h (in metres) less than 2m below ground level, F is reduced by a factor
2
2
1
|
|
.
|

\
|

h
and
applied at the top of the structure. For structures buried deeper than 2m, the KEL component
F is not applied. The UDL component o
h
is unaffected.
J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 9

Uniform horizontal
pressure, o
h
Horizontal triangular
load, F
2m
h

Proportion of triangular load applied to wall =
2
2
1
|
|
.
|

\
|

h

Figure 7. Adjustment for buried structures

Development of a Surcharge Model for Wing Walls and Other Earth
Retaining Structures

The effect of live load surcharge on wing walls is different from that on abutments walls. The
lanes are not perpendicular to the wall and so the relative position and orientation of the
vehicle loads are different from abutment loading. Wing walls may run parallel to the
carriageway or can be set at an angle to the carriageway, and in many cases will be remote
from the edge of the carriageway. The geometry of wing walls is also often non-uniform.
The method in PD6694-1
[2]
for wing walls and other earth retaining structures is based on the
method of C580
[8]
, and requires superposition of the effect of patch loads associated with
traffic loading.

For loads that are reasonably close to the wall as illustrated in Figure 8 (a), i.e. where
|
.
|

\
|
'
+ <
2
45 tan
d
H a
|
the horizontal thrust is determined from the triangle of forces as shown
in Figure 8(b) as:
( ) |
.
|

\
|
'
= ' =
2
45 tan tan
d
L d L n
Q Q P
|
| o (1)

where o=45+|
d
/2. The form of equation (1) is trigonometrically identical to the C580
expression, given in (2):

a L
d
d
L n
K Q Q P =
' +
'
=
|
|
sin 1
sin 1
(2)

J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 10



(a) (b)
|
.
|

\
|
'
+ <
2
45 tan
d
H a
|




(c) (d)
|
.
|

\
|
'
+ >
2
45 tan
d
H a
|

Figure 8. Method for wing walls
For loads that are further from the wall so that |
.
|

\
|
'
+ >
2
45 tan
d
H a
|
CIRIA C580 was not
explicit in how to apply the method. If the model of Figure 8 (a) were used then the active
wedge of soil would extend below the bottom of the wall, and the boundary condition at the
vertical interface would have changed. In developing the PD6694-1 methodology, two
alternative approaches were initially considered. The first was to use the method of Figure
8(a) but disregarding the pressures below the bottom of the wall. The second method (which
P
n

Q
L

R
o-|
d

P
n

Q
L

R
45-|
d
/2
J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 11

seemed more rational) was to adjust the method with a reduced value of o to fit within the
wall geometry as shown in Figure 8(c) and (d). This approach gives a thrust of:

( )
d L n
Q P | o ' = tan (3)
where

a
H
= o tan (4)
A comparison was carried out for the method in Figure 8(c) and the method in Figure 8(a) but
disregarding the pressures below the bottom of the wall. This comparison yielded almost
identical bending moments about the base of the wall and comparable shear forces for the two
methods. The recommendation in PD6694-1 was therefore to have a minimum value of o as
illustrated in Figure 8(c), which seems to be a rational and sensible solution. A classical
Coulomb wedge analysis would indicate that axles further than a distance of approximately H
from the wall do not influence the horizontal thrust, and the methods of Figure 8 (where there
is no such limit) are on the conservative side for loads remote from the wall.

The practical problem with using the methods in Figure 8 is that the effect of every wheel of
every vehicle apparently needs to be superimposed, which can be laborious. A simplification
may be made for analysing global effects where the wall is parallel to the carriageway, by
considering the effect of each line of wheels of a vehicle or a convoy of vehicles and then
summing these effects together with those for any vehicles in other lanes.
For the case where the wall is longer than L+2a, where L is the length of the vehicle and a is
the distance from the wall to the line of wheels, the horizontal thrust associated with each line
of wheels may be modelled by taking the sum of the wheel loads in the line of wheels (EW)
and multiplying by ( )
d
| o ' tan using the method of Figure 8. The average thrust per metre of
wall associated with the line of wheels is therefore
( )
d
wall
ave n
L
W
P | o ' =

tan
,
(5)

However, where the wall length does not exceed L+2a (or if there is a convoy of vehicles)
then it is necessary to superpose the effects of wheels and to determine the critical vehicle
position to give the maximum thrust. An alternative approach would be to develop tables
giving the worst average thrust per metre for walls of various lengths and for various
distances (a) from the line of wheels to the wall, for each vehicle configuration required.

The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-2 allows the dynamic amplification factor (DAF) for
both vertical and horizontal effects to be linearly reduced according to the depth below the
ground surface. This means that when applying the model of Figure 8 the pressures at each
depth are subsequently multiplied by a DAF that reduces with depth, resulting in a total
pressure distribution that is parabolic rather than triangular. However, an acceptable degree of
accuracy is generally obtained by using a constant DAF based on the depth d
P
of the centroid
of the triangular pressure diagram in Figure 8.
J Shave, T Christie, S Denton, A Kidd 12

Conclusions
Methods for analysing the effects of live load surcharges on abutments, wing walls and other
earth retaining structures have been developed corresponding to the load models in the UK
National Annex to BS EN1991-2. The surcharge models have been incorporated into
PD6694-1.

The model for surcharge on abutments comprises UDL and KEL components to be applied to
the abutment, and is appropriate for a variety of structure types including segmental structures
where local pressure concentrations may be critical. To allow more economical unit-strip
design of structures that are able to distribute loads transversely, a reduction factor has been
derived that is a simple function of the height of the wall. This factor may then be applied to
the KEL component. The abutment surcharge model is also appropriate for buried structures,
with an adjustment necessary for structures with a depth of fill less than 2m.

Recommendations have also been made for modelling surcharge effects on wing walls and
other earth retaining structures, and guidance has been developed to facilitate the modelling of
these effects.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was originally carried out on behalf of the Highways
Agency and has been developed for PD6694-1, which is the responsibility of the BSi
committee B/526, Geotechnics. The authors would like to thank the Highways Agency for
permission to publish this paper.
References
[1] Highways Agency (2001) BD37/01 Loads for highway bridges, TSO
[2] BSi (2010) PD 6694-1:2010 Recommendations for the design of structures subject to
traffic loading to BS EN 1997-1: 2004 (Draft for comment)
[3] BSi (1972) BS 153:Part 3A:1972 Specification for steel girder bridges. Loads
[4] Highways Agency (2006) BA55/06 Assessment of bridge substructures and
foundations, retaining walls and buried structures, TSO
[5] Canadian Standards Association (2006) CAN/CSA-S6-06 Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code, CSA, Ontario.
[6] Boussinesq (1885) Application des potentials a letude de lequilibre et du mouvement
des solides elastiques. Gauthiers-Villars, Paris.
[7] Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a
quelquels problemesde statique relatifs, a la architecture. Memoires de Mathematique
et de Physique presentes a lAcademie Royales Des Sciences, Paris 1773, vol. 7, pp.
343387.
[8] Williams and Waite (1993) The Design and Construction of Sheet Piled Cofferdams
CIRIA Special Publication 95
[9] IStructE (1951) Civil engineering code of practice no. 2, earth retaining structures
[10] Rankine, W. (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Vol. 147.
[11] CIRIA (2003) Report C580 Embedded retaining walls guidance for economic
design, CIRIA, London 2003