Integral Abutments for Prestressed Beam Bridges


ISBN 0 950034770

© Prestressed Concrete Association, 1998

Prestressed Concrete Association, 60 Charles Street,

Leicester, LEI IFB.

Typeset by B. A. Nicholson. Printed by Uniskill Ltd.



2.1 General 2
2.2 Bridge loading 2
2.3 Shrinkage and creep 3
2.4 Soil-structure interaction 9
3.1 Introduction 12
3.2 Types of prestressed bridge beam 12
3.3 Piled foundations 13
3.4 Spread footings 14
3.5 Full height abutments 15
3.6 Semi-integral bridges 16
5.1 Introduction 22
5.2 Longitudinal capacity 24
5.3 Deck design 26
5.4 Abutment design loads 26
5.5 End diaphragm design 26
5.6 Sheet piles 32
5.7 Design of wing walls 34
5.8 Skew 34
5.9 Drainage 36
6.1 Introduction 38
6.2 Longitudinal capacity 40
6.3 Deck analysis 42
6.4 Vertical pile capacity 42
6.5 Calculation of abutment movement and rotation 42
6.6 Pile design for bending 50
6.7 Pilecap design 54 7


7.2 Longitudinal capacity 7.3 Deck design

7.4 Loads for abutment design 7.5 Abutment design

7.6 Stability of retaining wall

62 64 66 72 78





For many centuries, bridges were built without expansion joints or bearings. As both engineering analysis and construction became more sophisticated in the 20th Century, and with increasing use of concrete and steel, bridges came to be fitted with bearings and expansion joints as a matter of course. It has now become apparent that these details often lead to more problems than they solve. Led by pressure from the Highways Agency, there is an increasing tendency to eliminate those details which can give rise to maintenance problems during the lifetime of the bridge. The term "integral" has been adopted to describe those bridges which do not have expansion joints and bearings.

The most important feature of integral bridges, from the point of view of reducing future maintenance, is the fact that there is no joint in the surfacing where water can penetrate through to the underside of the bridge. In the same way that bridge decks can be continuous over intermediate supports, but still have bearings there, it is possible for there to be no expansionjoints at the abutments, but for bearings to be provided. Following North American practice, this type of construction will be referred to as "semi-integral". This type of construction is particularly suited to prestressed beam bridges.

Abutments of integral bridges are attached to the bridge, and so have to move horizontally in response to temperature fluctuations in the bridge. The abutments must be designed to allow this movement to occur, at the same time as being able to resist longitudinal traffic loads. Clearly the design of integral abutments involves different considerations from the design of conventional fixed abutments. Similarly, the design of integral abutments for bridges built using prestressed concrete beams also requires a few special considerations which do not arise in integral bridges using other forms of construction.

The aim of this design guide is to set out a logical design philosophy for integral bridges, with emphasis on the abutments. This guide only refers to construction using precast prestressed bridge beams, and there is particular discussion of topics unique to this form of construction. However, many of the recommendations are also applicable to other forms of construction.

Section 2 of this guide explains the design requirements for all forms of prestressed beam integral bridges in general terms, with particular discussion of shrinkage and creep, and soil structure interaction. Section 3 contains recommendations for different forms of construction, and the types of prestressed beam suitable in each case. Section 4 sets out a suggested step-by-step design procedure for the different type of integral bridge. Finally, Sections 5 to 7 comprise design examples of three different integral abutments with an extensive commentary which picks out and amplifies the relevant issues from Sections 2 to 4. Issues which are common to all the examples have not always been repeated in each example. The reader is assumed to be familiar with concrete bridge design, so lengthy reinforcement calculations have not been included.



Integral bridges should basically be designed using the same limit state principles and design codes as any other bridge. Normally this will mean using the appropriate parts ofBS 5400(1), and this has been assumed in this design guide. BS 5400 does not refer specifically to integral bridges, and the Highways Agency have published an advice note, BA 42/96(4), on the specific extra requirements for integral bridges.

Guidance is given below on the interpretation of the design requirements for integral bridges, and in particular the application of these requirements to prestressed beam bridges.


The loads to be applied to the bridge deck are specified in BS 5400: Part 2, as amended by BD 37/88(5). These loads apply just as much to the design of the abutments and intermediate supports as they do to the design ofthe bridge deck, as the vertical and horizontal forces on the bridge must be transmitted to the foundations.

Dead and Live Loads

The magnitude of the dead load, superimposed dead load, various live loads (and wind load if appropriate), and their associated load factors can all be taken from BS 5400: Part 2, as amended by BD 37/88.

The longitudinal braking and traction forces are particularly relevant in the design of the abutments of integral bridges, as these forces will cause overall longitudinal movement of the bridge.

Temperature Loading

Again, calculation of temperature loading on the bridge deck should follow BS 5400: Part 2, as amended by BD 37/88.

Temperature differences through the thickness of the deck can generate significant stresses and are important for the design of the deck, but are unlikely to have much effect on the abutment design. Small rotations at the end of the bridge will result from this loading, or bending moments in the case of portal structures.


The response of the bridge abutments to the temperature variation is the most important difference between an integral bridge and a jointed bridge. Thermal expansion and contraction of the bridge causes the abutments to move, leading to movement and changes in pressure in the earth or fill behind the abutment. In much of the UK, the range of effective bridge temperature is about 46°C for concrete bridges. If the bridge deck were unrestrained, the total range of strain due to thermal expansion and contraction would be:

This is equivalent to a 33mm change oflength for a 60m long deck. Depending on the relative stiffuess of the bridge deck and the foundations, the actual range of movement will be less than this, as some restraint will be generated by the foundations. In most normal situations, the restraint will not significantly reduce the range of movement, and can therefore be ignored in this context. Thus the foundations should be designed to accommodate the above range of movement, and this same movement may be used as to calculate the earth pressures. Note that the axial force in the deck also varies with temperature, and this effect must be included in the deck design.

Since the bridge may not be constructed exactly at its mean temperature, BA 42/96 specifies a thermal strain to be assumed each side of the mean position of 0.00042, or 420!l£. This useful simplification allows for the fact that the bridge may be constructed 10° above or below its mean temperature, and applies to bridges anywhere in the UK.

The maximum daily temperature variation in a concrete bridge has been shown"?' to be about 4.5°C, equivalent to an unrestrained range of movement of 54~£, or 3mm for a 60m deck. This is about 10% of the 120 year return period range of movement. The full 120 year expansion will not take place in one large uniform movement, because the daily fluctuations in temperature will be superimposed. Almost every day the abutments will move both towards and away from the soiL


These two effects need to be considered together as they are interrelated. As concrete ages it shrinks slightly. The rate at which the concrete shrinks decreases approximately exponentially with time, with half of the total shrinkage normally occurring in the first three months or so after casting. Creep in concrete is a response to long term stress; the concrete strain gradually increases to two or three times the elastic strain. The creep strain rate decreases with time, similar to the way the shrinkage rate decreases.


Calculation of Unrestrained Shortening and Rotation

The overall shortening of prestressed concrete bridges is often thought to be for integral construction. It is therefore interesting to make an estimate of the total shortening that might be expected. Similarly, in the case of a rotationally flexible abutment such as a bank seat, or a simple row of piles, it is useful to be able to estimate the maximum rotation that creep and shrinkage might cause.

Unrestrained shrinkage strains of the prestressed beams and of the deck slab can be estimated from the factors given in Appendix C ofBS5400: Part 4(6). The slab will often have a larger shrinkage strain than the beam.

The unrestrained creep strain of the beam can also be estimated in the same way. The permanent loads on the beam (prestress, DL and SDL) often lead to fairly uniform compressive stresses in the precast beam of about I ON/mm2• A creep factor of 1.4 is typical for creep taking place after bridge construction (assuming that the beams are 100 days old at this point).

Adding together the shortening due to shrinkage and due to creep, it is clear that the beam wants to shorten more than the slab. These strains can be distributed through the composite section in the same way as two eccentric forces, one applied at the slab centroid, the other at the beam centroid. Typically it is found that the soffit of the beam shortens by 300xl0-6 more than the top of the slab.

For a composite deck with a span:depth ratio of 20, the rotation at the ends due to shrinkage and creep is about 0.003 radians, as illustrated by the examples opposite. In many cases this value can simply be used without performing special calculations.

For shorter end spans in continuous bridges, the span: depth ratio is often significantly less than 20. This has a double benefit in reducing the end rotation: less prestress will be required, leading to less creep strain; and the shorter length will also reduce rotation.

Assuming that the bridge is completed about three months after the beams are cast, the overall long term shortening of the bridge deck after construction is typically found to be approximately 400Jl£, or 25mm for a 60m deck.

It is interesting to note that this shortening is of similar magnitude to the range of thermal movement. It is a single gradual movement. The daily thermal movements are about 10% of the magnitude of the overall shortening due to shrinkage and creep, so the amount of shortening which takes place in anyone day will be insignificant compared to the thermal movement on that day. The soil is disturbed on a daily basis, and the long term forward movement of the abutment (due to shortening of the deck) represents only a tiny fraction of the total disturbance ofthe soiL

It is concluded that the shortening of the deck will therefore not cause a gap to form between the soil and the back face ofthe abutment. Overall shortening due to shrinkage and creep does not need to be considered in the design of integral bridges.


T2 beams,

with in-situ infill concrete.

Span = 9.1 m

End rotation = 0.0036

Y3 beams at 1 m centres, with 200mm in-situ slab.

Span = 20 m

End rotation = 0.0034

UlO beams at 2.2m centres, with 200mm in-situ slab.

Span = 26 m

End rotation = 0.0026

End rotation due to creep and shrinkage in a selection of typical decks

Calculation of Restraint Moment

The rotation of the beam ends due to creep and shrinkage has a significant effect on the design of the bridge deck and abutment when a full height wall abutment is being employed, as the abutment will try to restrain this rotation.

Mattock"!' and Clark'!" both explain how if creep is restrained, the restraint moment (or force) builds up to a factor of (l-c=) of the moment (or force) that would exist if the structure had been cast and prestressed as a single monolithic whole.

In the case of a prestressed beam, the permanent moment along the length of the beam (which is due to the prestress, dead load, and superimposed dead load) can be approximated to a uniform hogging moment, as illustrated in the example opposite. The prestress is chosen to balance the DL, and therefore reduces towards the ends of the beams, so that this is a reasonable approximation. At midspan this moment can be calculated from:

• the prestress moment based on eccentricity between tendons and the centroid of the composite section

• the dead load of beam and slab

• the superimposed dead load for surfacing

If the bridge has been cast and prestressed as a monolithic structure, a sagging restraint moment equal to this ''uniform'' moment would appear at each support. If the integral abutment is rotationally stiff, this moment will also appear at the connection to the abutment. Therefore for a continuous bridge, the restraint moment at the supports will build up towards a factor of (l-e-41) times this moment. Similarly the restraint moment at an integral abutment will build up to this same value.

BS 5400: Part 4 adopts a value of2.0 for ip, which is within the range suggested by Mattock. However, for the prestressed beams, some of the creep will occur before the deck is cast, and the bridge and abutments are made continuous. The value of ip applicable to creep after bridge construction will be more like 1.4. For this situation, the factor (l-e-41) can be taken to be 0.75 (note that a reasonable variation in ip does not affect this factor significantly).

In summary, the sagging restraint moment that builds up over continuous supports and at integral abutments can be approximated to 75% of the average permanent (hogging) moment in the composite section.


Bending moments





Dead load

-i:'''''=;;;:;:;::==========+========:::::::::::=--t Superimposed

-0.12 -I

dead load

0.63 --


Permanent bending moments about the composite centroid for 19.6m span Y3 beams, based on Hambly & Nicholson'".

Note that total bending moment approximates a uniform moment equal to the midspan moment.

Effect on Integral Abutments

It is well known that creep causes each span of a prestressed beam bridge to hog progressively as time goes by. In a simply supported bridge this does not cause any difficulties. In continuous bridges, it can lead to sagging moments over the supports. The PCAhas already given advice as to how designers should deal with this problem'!"; a standard number of reinforcing bars in the bottom flange of the prestressed beams has been suggested.

Similar issues can also arise at the abutments:

• Bank seat abutments and semi-integral abutments (which have bearings) can be assumed to provide no restraint against rotation, so these are no problem.

• Piled abutments are designed to provide little restraint to horizontal movement or rotation. The creep rotation should be added to the rotations to live loads and temperature to which the piles must be designed.

• Portal frame bridges rely on the moment continuity between the deck and the wall abutment. Creep of the beams can cause sagging moments at these connections, so the wall abutment must be designed for this extra moment at the top. The design of the wall to resist the high soil pressures will be difficult enough without a large bending moment applied at the top, so it is worth trying to minimise this moment. It seems logical to use the same continuity steel in the bottom flange ofthe beams as over the intermediate supports. This can either be a small nominal amount of reinforcement, which will allow cracking to occur, or the reinforcment can be designed to provide the restraint moment of75% of the permanent hogging moment in the deck.



The soil pressures on an integral abutment are more complicated than for a fixed abutment, because the pressures change significantly when the abutment moves. The available codes of practice which might be considered relevant give conflicting advice:

BS 8002(2) is intended for the design of earth retaining structures. It does not cover the soil-structure interaction which is fundamental to the understanding of integral bridges, and is based on very conservative "worst credible" soil parameters. BS 8002 is therefore not recommended for the design of integral bridges.

BS 8004(3) deals with the design of foundations. This code can be used for both spread foundations and piled foundations. Care is required as it is based on working stresses whereas the design for the bridge superstructure will use the load factor approach ofBS 5400.

BD 42/94(6) covers the design of embedded retaining walls and bridge abutments. ULS earth pressures are calculated based on worst credible parameters with a load factor of 1.0. Whereas this method is adequate for the design of fixed abutments, it is unsatisfactory for moving integral abutments, for which it was not intended.

BA 42/96(4) was written specifically because the other codes were not satisfactory for integral bridges. It provides guidance on horizontal earth pressures, and soil-structure interaction, and is based on recent specially commissioned research. The load and material factors to be used are also specified. It is recommended that this document be used in preference to those listed above. It is not entirely clear in this document exactly when and how the partial factors should be applied. The reason for the ambiguity on this point is that earth pressures are often generated as a reaction to bridge loads, which already include suitable load factors, so that it would seem inappropriate then to apply a further load factor. However, the partial factors given in BA 42/96 are perfectly sensible if used with care and common sense. Recommendations are given below.

One conservative provision ofBA 42/96 is worth mentioning specifically: The soil pressure is limited to a minimum ofKp/3. The mechanisms oflarge numbers of cycles of small strains in the soil is at present not well understood. The soil pressures are believed to increase with time in response to the many hundreds of strain cycles. A minimum pressure of Kp/3 has been specified to allow for this increase in pressure. The Highways Agency may issue a revision to this minimum pressure in the future, when the results of further research become available.

Earth Pressures

For an integral bridge, soil-structure interaction causes earth pressures to vary over a large range. The following factors can have an effect on the earth pressures:

• Braking and traction forces on the bridge deck

For braking and traction forces it is necessary to ensure that the foundation resistance is adequate to prevent large longitudinal movement of the bridge. This check should be carried out at SLS for the appropriate longitudinal highway loads. The required earth pressure coefficient should be calculated for realistic soil parameters. A partial factor of'Ym = 0.5 should be applied to this coefficient. The amount of movement required to generate this earth pressure coefficient can then be derived from the formula in BA 42/96, or from charts in, for example, the CBDG report'!".

If the soil parameters and behaviour are exactly as assumed, the effect of including 'Ym in this way is to ensure that the calculated movement will in fact generate twice the longitudinal loads.

• Shortening due to creep and shrinkage

This can be ignored for the purposes of the abutment design, as has been explained earlier.

• Thermal contraction

Thermal contraction will lead to minimum earth pressures. It is not necessary to worry about a gap forming behind the abutment; as explained previously, the daily thermal movements will ensure that this does not occur.

• Thermal expansion

Thermal expansion of the deck leads to the maximum earth pressures, which will be a critical design condition for the abutment wall.

For shallow abutments it is simplest to use passive earth pressures, based on realistic soil pressures. The actual pressures will be significantly lower than this for short bridges, so benefit may be obtained by calculating the earth pressure coefficient based on the unrestrained expansion. For the ULS design of the abutment wall, 'YfL = 1.5 and 'Ym = 1.0 should be applied to these earth pressures, as specified in BA 42/96.

Full height abutments should also be designed using realistic soil parameters, with the soil pressure distribution as defined in BA 42/96. A computer analysis of the complete structure will usually be required to establish the distribution of moment between the wall and the deck, taking the soil


pressures as forces applied to the structure. The structural design of the wall at ULS can then be carried out based on the load effects from this computer analysis, which should include 't« = 1.5 for earth pressures (as specified in BA 42/96). A stability analysis for the retaining wall will also be required, for which any of the well known methods may be used.

Thermal expansion causes axial force in the deck, and this will effect the prestress design. Since this design is carried out at SLS, partial factors of "ffL = 1.0 and "fm = 1.0 should be used for the compressive stress due to earth pressure.

F or more flexible walls, such as sheet pile walls, soil pressures may be lower. It is possible to use specialist geotechnical software to model the soil-structure interaction to estimate the soil pressures in this case. Unfortunately, it is not clear how the increase in pressures due to many hundreds ofloading cycles can be taken into account, so this method cannot be recommended for general use.

A computer analysis of the deck will normally be carried out for all bridges, whether they are integral or not. For integral bridges with shallow abutments, supported on spread foundations or on piles, no additional computer analysis is required. This is also true for semi-integral bridges.

For full height abutments, which have moment continuity between the deck and the abutment wall, the computer model needs to include both the deck and the abutment walls. For relatively short bridges of this type, it is recommended that a simple linear elastic model of the soil stiffness will be adequate to give a reasonable distribution of moment between deck and abutment. Considerable uncertainties arise due to the creep restraint moments, so a more rigorous analysis is not considered to be justified. The recommended form of computer model therefore is a grillage for the deck, extended into three dimensions by the addition of elements to represent the abutment walls, with horizontal linear elastic springs to represent the soil stiffness.

Various more sophisticated programs (such as FREW and WALLAP) have been proposed for use in calculating the soil pressures which occur behind the abutment walls. These programs allow modelling of the non-linear behaviour of the soil. Unfortunately, they are not easy to use in this context, because they cannot properly model the interaction between the abutment and the deck. Use of these programs adds considerably to the complexity of the calculations, which makes it much harder for the designer to understand how the structure is working. These factors are at best unhelpful, and at worst can lead to errors. For short bridges where the abutment movements are relatively small, the benefits of using these programs is limited, but full height integral abutments are not recommended for use with precast beams for longer bridges. For all these reasons, the use of specialist soil mechanics programs is not normally considered to be justified.

! l

i I



Highway Agency standard BA 42/96(4) contains diagrams of some suggested types of integral bridge. These suggestions have been expanded upon in the CBDG report of a study tour of North America'!". This CBDG report includes comments on the applicability of the different types of integral bridge, and so in this respect is both more useful and more up-to-date than BA 42/96.

This design guide goes one step further, by considering the particular requirements of prestressed beams. The characteristics of prestressed beams that need special consideration when choosing a form of integral abutment are:

• embedment of precast beams into end diaphragm or abutment

• moment connection between precast beams and abutment, if required

• rotation of the beam ends due to creep of the prestressed beams.


In principle, all the forms of integral abutment can be used with any of the standard ranges of precast bridge beam, but it is hoped that sticking to the guidelines on the next few pages will usually lead to the most straightforward and economic design.

Integral bridges of two or more spans must have some form of continuity over the intermediate supports. This will usually involve some reinforcement protruding from the ends of the beams near the bottom of the section. Depending on the type of integral abutment selected, this continuity steel may also be required at the abutments. Due to the narrow bottom flange and web, this is difficult to achieve with the M beam range, whereas there is much more space inside the mould of the alternative Y beam range. The use ofM beams is therefore not recommended for integral construction.

The standard beam ranges that are recommended for use in integral bridges are:

• T and TY beams

• Ybeams

• SYbeams

• Ubeams

Four main types of integral abutment are identified and discussed on the pages which follow. In each case, recommendations are made for the standard beam ranges considered to be suitable.



Piled foundations have found widespread application on integral bridges in North America over the last few decades, and are beginning to be used in the same way in the UK. Piles provide solid resistance to vertical loads, while being sufficiently flexible to allow practically unrestrained rotation. The pile capacity should be checked to ensure that it can cope with live load rotations, as well as the additional rotation due to creep of the prestressed beams, while still maintaining adequate load capacity. Piles can be used for bank seats (illustrated above left), as well as abutments behind concrete or reinforced soil retaining walls (above right).

Beams may have reinforcing bars protruding from the bottom flange, or alternatively the beams may be tied to the abutments via an embedment length of about 600mm and reinforcement passing through the web holes. The abutment is normally cast in two stages, firstly the pile cap, and later the top half which forms an end diaphragm for the beams.

Steel H piles are recommended, in a single row, bending about their weak axis. Steel piles have been found to stand up to repeated large rotations at the top better than concrete piles, and orientating them about the weak axis minimises restraint to rotation and bending moments.

Piled foundations are recommended for all types of precast beam. They are most likely to be used in association with the Y, SY, and U beam ranges.


Spread footings may be used in a traditional bank seat situation, or behind a retaining wall (mostly likely to be of reinforced soil). Horizontal forces are resisted both by earth pressures on the back of the abutments and by friction on the base of the abutments. A design example is given in Hambly & Nicholson'",

The footings can be cast very simply on the ends of any precast beam. The footing will be free to rotate, so moment continuity is not required. However, the base ofthe footing is normally a significant distance below the beams, so some moment will be generated when the abutment is forced to move by thermal expansion or contraction of the deck. This moment can easily be quantified. In order to tie the abutment and deck together effectively, it is suggested that some reinforcing bars should protrude from the ends of the beams and be hooked around reinforcement in the abutment. Steel in the in-situ deck slab can obviously continue straight into the abutment. The beams do not require a long embedment if they have bars coming out of their ends to transfer the small amount ofload that is required, and web holes will not be needed.

It should be noted that spread footings should only be used for integral bridges where the risk of incremental settlement is minimal, as indicated in the CBDG report. Spread footings have been used successfully on weaker ground by placing them on top of larger fixed support slabs.

Spread footings are recommended for use with Y beams, and possibly with U beams.



Full height frame abutments, whether they use a reinforced wall on a spread footing or a piled embedded wall, are most suitable for single short spans. When the wall is comparable in stiffness to the deck, it can provide significant restraint to creep rotations without picking up impossibly high moments, or undergoing large rotations.

This form of abutment becomes increasingly difficult to design as the bridge length increases. This is true whatever type of deck is used, but it is particularly significant for prestressed beam decks, due to the effects of creep and the difficulty of providing a moment connection between the deck and the wall. If an abutment with a full height wall is required in any situation other than a short single span, it is recommended that one of the other forms of integral abutment be used.

It is recommended that this form of construction is used with the TY (and inverted T) range of beams. These have a span range of up to 17m. If these beams are used with infill concrete to form a solid slab, moment continuity between abutment wall and deck can be achieved with reinforcing steel in the concrete. No bars need to protrude from the ends of the beams, which simplifies manufacture, transport, and erection.




Semi-integral construction is considered to be particularly suitable for prestressed beam bridges. This form of construction has no expansion joints, but does include bearings. The bearings eliminate the problems associated with moment continuity and rotation due to creep.

A semi-integral abutment at the top of a retaining wall is a much more satisfactory alternative to a long span portal frame bridge, in situations where a full height wall abutment must be provided. An end diaphragm is cast on to the beams, to give an abutment wall of about 2m depth to transfer horizontal loads to the soil. If the beams are shallow, this end diaphragm will have to cantilever down below the soffit level of the beams.

Although this form of construction can be used with any prestressed beams, it is most likely to be useful for the larger beams. Because bearings are required, semi-integral construction is more economic when there are fewer larger beams. Wide spacing of beams also allows easier access to the bearings for inspection and maintenance.

Semi-integral abutments are recommended for use with the Y beam range, and particularly with the SY and U beam ranges.


In an integral bridge, the design of the superstructure and the substructure cannot be completely separated. The bridge behaves as one monolithic structure. The bridge deck loads, creep, and soil-structure interaction are all significant factors in the design of the deck, piers and abutments. It is all too easy to get bogged down in the detail of these complexities. In contrast, the overriding philosophy of this design guide is to present a design process that is conservative but straightforward, so that it is easy for design engineers to understand what they are doing, and why.

The main steps in this recommended simple design procedure are described on the next four pages. For each step, the application to the different types of integral bridge is briefly explained. More detailed guidance is given in the individual design examples in the remainder of this book.

Step 1:



Calculate the earth pressure coefficient, K, needed to resist braking & traction forces, applying 'fm = 0.5 to K. Check that sufficient horizontal capacity is available from the earth behind the abutment to resist the longitudinal forces, and check the magnitude of the horizontal movement required to mobilise the required earth pressure.


• Check horizontal movement (sway)

• Check capacity of soil to resist horizontal forces




• Check horizontal movement

• Check capacity of soil to resist horizontal forces


K. K*


• Check horizontal movement

• Check capacity of soil, including base friction, to resist horizontal forces





• Check horizontal movement

• Check capacity of soil to resist horizontal forces



I K.


Step 2:


Model the whole structure, and apply all bridge load combinations. Use a linear elastic foundation model, based on realistic soil parameters. Include the creep restaint moment where relevant to the form of construction. This model is used for the prestress design of the deck.

Computer model includes deck, walls, and springs to represent the soil. Creep restraint moment treated as "fixed-end moment" in deck; computer analysis includes release of this FEM. Alternatively creep can be modelled as initial curvature in the deck longitudinal members.

• Deck design for maximum sagging moments at SLS.

e; Comb 1 & 3 loads ~ FEM

''';;'' L' release

~V '--~

Assume pinned ends at the piled abutments. The piles give negligible restraint to rotation. Hogging due to creep is therefore also unrestrained and can be ignored.

• Deck design for maximum sagging moments at SLS.

• Vertical design load for piles.

Comb 1 & 3 bridge loads

Analyse as pinned at the abutments. Creep restaint moment is therefore ignored. The analysis is the same as for a simply-supported bridge.

• Deck design for maximum sagging moments at SLS.

Comb 1 & 3 bridge loads

Semi-integral bridges are pinned at the abutments. This analysis is therefore the same as for a simply-supported bridge.

• Deck design for maximum sagging moments at SLS.

Comb 1 & 3 bridge loads



Step 3:


Step 3 (a)

Maximum thermal expansion, and combination 3 bridge loads. Maximum earth pressures are based on K* calculated as if expansion is unrestrained. Earth pressures are treated as loads. Creep is a relieving effect in this loadcase, and so is omitted.

This is a ULS analysis.


No horizontal foundation springs. Soil pressure is applied as a load, with YtL = 1.5 atULS.

Comb 3 loads

• Hogging at ends of beams.

• Forward bending at top of wall.




Comb 3 loads

Apply combination 3 loads to deck, and passive earth pressures to abutment. Abutment movement and rotation are applied to pileheads.

• Pile design for bending

• Hogging moment at beam ends.

• End diaphragmlpilecap design.



Apply passive earth pressure to back of abutment, and friction under base. Deck loads are

irrelevant as abutments are ~f~::=::=::::=~n

analysed as cantilevers off ends :_

of deck.

• Hogging moment at beam ends.

• RC design of abutment.

Apply passive earth pressures to back of end diaphragm, with YtL = 1.5 for ULS.


• Design of end diaphragm for horizontal bending


Step 3 (b)

Maximum thermal contraction, together

with minimum bridge loads. Active earth pressures are applied as loads. The effects of long tenn creep, and positive differential temperature loading should be included.

This is a ULS analysis.

Step 3(c)

Thermal expansion, together with minimum bridge loads. Earth pressures based on K* are applied as loads. The effects of long term creep, and positive differential temperature loading should again be included.

This is a ULS analysis.

~ min. loads r" FEM release


Active earth pressure, with YfL = 1.0.

• Backward bending at top of wall.

• Sagging at beam ends.

~ min. loads C FEM release


K*!f/ "'\ K*

-/1 .... f\'


Maximum earth pressure, with YfL = 1.5. • Backward bending of wall.

Thermal movement, creep rotation, and rotation due to differential temperature loads applied to pileheads.

• Reverse bending in piles.

• Reverse bending in end diaphragm/pilecap.





Thermal contraction causes friction under the base of the abutment.

• Tension in front of abutment.

• Continuity steel in beam ends.



This design example is for a single span semi-integral bridge with a 33m clear span. The design calculations are presented on the right-hand pages, with commentary and additional explanation on the left-hand pages. The design follows the step-by-step design process described in Section 4, and these steps are numbered on the calculation pages.

Initial design

This bridge carries a single two lane carriageway 7.3m wide, with a 2m footpath each side. Initial design is based on peA span charts for the various beam ranges, leading to the selection of SY 4 beams. A beam spacing of 1.5m has been chosen to fit the overall width of the deck.

A 200mm deck slab is used, and the 1800mm deep SY 4 beams penetrate 30mm into the bottom of the slab, which leads to the overall deck depth of 1.97m.

The essential feature of a semi-integral bridge is that although the ends of the bridge react horizontally directly against the soil, fixed foundations provide vertical support to the abutments. In this case, the bridge is supported on anchored sheet pile retaining walls, each with a row of elastomeric bearings on a reinforced concrete capping beam. These retaining walls are not affected by horizontal movements of the bridge deck. The end diaphragms on the SY beams interact directly with the backfill, providing resistance to horizontal forces, and moving with the thermal expansion and contraction of the bridge deck.

Ground conditions

It is assumed that the sheet piles are driven into the existing ground, which is very stiff over-consolidated clay. However, the soil immediately behind the end diaphragms will have to be removed to allow construction to take place, and so granular backfill will be specified for placement against the back of the moving part of the abutment, above the level of the sheet pile capping beam.



qenert?1 t?fft?lfgemettt ofbrldge 1:300

~ : S'14bed#l$ : ~~

-~~I ~ ~ ~~I~-

Slteet /,ile rettJil1il1g wdll witlt cOl1crete r-----------------------------------------~&/'/'mgfo~#I

Cledr $/'dl1 = 33#1 Verticdl c/edrtJl1Ce = 6#1

Crogg-sectlon ofdeck 1:100

k 051f1 1

Dlmenslont?1 detm/$

Single clet?r sft?n Ovemll eXf't?ndlng lengtlt Overt?11 deck wldtlt Ovem// deck dCf'tlt

= 33.0m = 35.0m = L2.3m =1.9rm

ExIsting ground:

c, = 150 kN/m.2 net?r tlte sUlft?ce, Incret?slng to CII = 200 kN/m2 t?t tlte bottom of tlte slteet files


</>' = 40° forgrt?nu!t?rfl/I beltlnd end dlt?fltrt?gm


In calculating the soil pressure, depth must be measured from the top ofthe surfacing, so the depth of the end diaphragm including surfacing is used in the calculations opposite. For simplicity the weight of the road construction is taken as the same as the bulk density of the backfill. Clearly the pressure coefficient is likely to be different, but this complexity is also ignored. The pressure close to the surface is much less than the pressure at the bottom of the abutment 2m lower, so any errors in the calculation of pressures in the top layer are negligible.

The end diaphragm drops about 100mm below the soffit of the beams. The soil pressure is assumed only to act on the vertical back face of the abutment (or end diaphragm in this case). This vertical face is narrower than the full width of the abutment, because short, turned-back wing-walls are attached to each side. The width between these wing-walls is ll.lm. The area assumed to resist horizontal forces is shaded on the diagram below.

O.4m thick wing wall

BA 42/96 specifies a material factor 'Ym of 0.5 to be applied to the soil pressure coefficient in the case of advantageous forces, such as the resistance of braking and traction effects. The use of this partial factor is illustrated in the calculation opposite. The effect is that the calculated movement of2.5mm should in reality be sufficient to generate twice the required horizontal reaction of 526kN. The abutment therefore has adequate capacity to resist longitudinal forces.

BA 42/96 does not contain any reference to a limit on the horizontal movement under braking and traction forces, but it is clear that the 2.5mm calculated here will be acceptable.


Horlzo/1tal movemelft

LoltgltHdlltal pr/dge loads mHst pe resisted hi tlte solllrcssHre pelt/ltd tlte eltd d/alltmgm.

lite movemeltt rettJIlred to moNI/se tft/s sOJ/ IressHre Is ca!cHlateri Itere. lite material peltlltd tlte eltd dlalltragm (aPHtmeltt) Is slec/fled as graltHlarf/11 wltlt ¢l = 40° altd Is CXfected to Itave a PHlk deltsltlf of 19kN/m3•

lite 10ltg/tHdlltal load Is calcHlated lit accordaltce wltlt 13D 37/88:

C!tJHsc6.1o.1 Nomlltal HA load = 8kN/m X 34.5m + 250kN

CiaHse 6.1 0.2 Nomll1al HB load = 25 % X 45Hltlts X (4 X 10kN) lite HA load Is clear/If crlt/cal for tltls Prldge..

= 526kN = 450kN

Helgltt of eltd dlapltragm

Wldtft of eltd dlalltmgm Wldtft of pack face

= 2.1 m for tlte coltcrete strllCHre

= 2.2m IltclHd/ltg deptlt ofsH/faclltg

= 11. 9m allow/ltg G.2m lartJpet overltaltg for eaclt wll1g wall = 11. 1m allowll1g for a O. 4m tltlck wlltg wall eaclt side

?reSSHre 011 aPHtmeltt torce Olt aPHtment

= I(yz

= f2l(ylt2p = f2 X I( X 19kN/m3 X (2.2)2X 11.1m = I(x510kN

Alllif/Itg YHI = 0.5 to I( (as slec/fled IIt13A 42/96 for res/st/ltg pm/(/ltg forces), altd ettJIatlltg tltls to tlte 3m Iton'zolttal force.'

I( YHI X 51 OkN = 52 6kN X YfL X 'Yr3 I(x 0.5 X 510kN = 526kNx1.0x 1.0 .: R..etpllred 1(* = 2. 06

For pacJft11 wltlt ¢l = 40° I 13A 42/96 gives I( = 9


1(* = 2.06 = (d/o.05H)o.4 X 9

d/H = 0.0013

d = o.0013H = o.0013x2m

= o.0025m

.', Loltg/tHdlltal forces 01111f caus« movements Of apoHt 2.5mm at tlte aPHtmeltts, wltlclt Is easilif accelta/J/e.


The design calculations for the deck of a semi-integral bridge have very little effect on the abutment design, and can be carried out independently at any stage. The deck design is not really one of the steps in designing the abutment. In this respect a semiintegral bridge is more like a non-integral bridge than an integral bridge. The bearing reactions are needed for the design of the fixed foundation, in this case a sheet pile wall.

This simply-supported bridge deck can be designed using peA guide "Simple Bridge Design using Prestressed Beams"?',


Since deck loading does not affect the abutment, which is free to rotate and move horizontally at the bearings, there is no need to consider maximum and minimum deck loads in combination with thermal expansion and contraction. Step 3 in the design procedure reduces to simply considering the effects of thermal expansion.

BA 42/96 specifies a strain of 0.00042 for thermal expansion or contraction, which is based on the temperature range for a typical UK location, and allows the movement from the initial position to be about 70% of the total range.

The pressure in the backfill could reasonably be calculated from the 7 Amm movement using the formula given in BA 42/96:

dIH = 0.0074m/2.1m = 0.0035

K* = (0.0035/0.05)°·4 ~ = 0.345 Kp = 3.1 for soil with fIJ' = 40°

However, BA 42/96 actually specifies that ~ should be used for shallow abutments such as this one. In line with this, full passive pressure is used for the design of the end diaphragm. Although this might seem unnecessarily conservative, it will be seen from the calculations for the design of the end diaphragm that passive pressure is not an onerous load, so there is no significant benefit in departing from this requirement.


Bending and shear of the end diaphragm will not be significant behind the bottom flanges of the beams, as the span between the beams is only 0.75m here. The worst case is about O.5m above the soffit of the beams, 1.6m below ground level (including surfacing).


Tltis does Itot trffect, altd is Itot trffected /lr, tlte aPHtl11eltt altd im (oHltdatiol1. Tlte deck is desiglted as Sil11pllf-sHpported Deck desiglt calcHlatiolts are Itot preseltted Itere.

Tlterl11al Waltsl'olt

8A 42/96 specifies a tlterl11al eXjJaltsiolt stmilt 0(0. 00042

Movel11elft = 0. 00042 X. 35111 = 14. r 111111 total

= r. 4 111111 at etJclt a/ltrtl11eltt

Tlte eltd diapltragl11s are desiglted to resist passive soil pres.8Hre. Tlte worst case (or /leltdiltg altd sltear lit tlte eltd diapltragl11 is /letweelt tlte Itarrowest part o(tlte we/ls, a/loHt 1. 6111 /le/ow groHltd level.

2.1111 diapltragl11 de!*1t

&palt petweelt we/ls = 1.5111 - 0.2111 = 1.3111

Pres.8Hre Olt diapltragl11 = /(, 'Y z

= 9 X. 19kN/1113 X. 1.6111 = 274kN/1112

= 0'2r4MN/1112

The moment is sufficiently small that a very conservative calculation is all that is required. Clearly the actual moment will be less than the simply-supported value based on wV18, due to the continuity behind the ends of the beams, and some two-way spanning effects. Rigorous calculation of the moment and shear is not justified here.

These structural calculations are in accordance with BS5400: Part 4, to which the clause numbers quoted below refer. Soil pressure calculations up to this point have used units ofkN and metres. The structural calculations, however, will be carried out using MN and metres, because the unit of stress MN/m2 is identical to the unit Nzmm' often quoted in the code.

The diaphragm is restrained horizontally by the deck slab, and vertically by the precast beams. Reinforcement must therefore be provided to prevent cracking, in accordance with Clause 5.8.9.

A total of 2000mm2/m is required to prevent cracking due to the restraint. If this is provided as 1000mm2/m front and back, this reinforcement exceeds that required to resist the passive pressure, justifying the conservative assumptions made in calculating the bending moment. The reinforcement must be spaced at no more than 150mm.

Clause (for beams) would require nominal shear links, but in fact the end diaphragm behaves more like a solid slab in resisting horizontal forces. The relevant clause is therefore Clause, which states that no shear reinforcement is required if the stress, v, is less than ~s Ve'


ConservatiVe/if pasing U LS pending moment on wL 2/8:

Mil = wL2/8 = 0.2r4MN/m2 X YrLX Yr3x(1.3m)2/8

= 0.2r4x1.5xl.l X 1.69/8 = 0.08rMNm/m

Tor sltear, take critical section d from sUl'l'ort. Dlal'ltragmls 0. 4m tltid;, so d will pe at least 0. 3m.

Loaded lengtlt = 1.3m- 2d = 1.3m- 2 X 0.3m = o.rm

V = 1/2 X O.rm X 0.2r4MN/m2 X YfL X Yr3 = 0.158MN/m v = V/pd = (0. 158MN/m) / (0. 30m) = 0.53 N/mm2

Bending stee/ retfjllred to resist l'a88lve I're88ure (claHse 5. 3. 2. 3)-

z = 0. 9 d = 0.9 X 0.3m = 0.2rm (Initial a88Hml'tlon)

As = MII/(0.8~z)= (0.08rMNm/m) / (400MN/m2 X 0.2rm) = 0.000806 m2/m

= 806mm2/m

MlnlmHm rell1{orcement to I'revent sltrlnkage and teml'eratHre cracking (claHse 5. 8. 9):

As = 0.005Ac - 0.005xO.4m2/m = 0.002000m2/m

= 2000 mm2 / m

.. 1 000mm2/mls retfUlred front and pack to I'revent cracking. Tlte dlal'ltragmls also restrained verticaillf Plf tlte peam$, so simIlar reinforcement Is retfUlred verticaillf. Tltls reinforcement mHst pe sl'aced at no more titan 150mm.

:. Use T16 @ 150 (1340m#l2/#I) In potlt direction$, front and pac/(.

$ltear resistance (clause for slaps)-

$tee/I'ercentage = 100x(0.001340m2/#I)/(0.3m) = 0.45% ~ = 0.56 N/mm2 fro#l Taple 8

~s = 1.15 frO#l TaNe 9

~s ~ = 1.15 X 0.56 = 0.64 N/m#l2 > v = 0.53 N/m#l2

:. R-.elnforce#lent of T 16 @ 150l'rovldes adetfUate sltear resistance.

No sltear relnforce#lent Is retfUlred.


Reinforcement details for the end diaphragms are shown opposite. One important feature to notice is the short embedment length of only 50mm of the beams into the diaphragm. This avoids the beams interrupting the diaphragm reinforcement, in the same way that the deck reinforcement continues over the tops of the beam which protrude a short distance into the soffit of the slab.

50mm embedment of beam into diaphragm

4 T16 L bars, or

4 prestressing strands protruding from the end of each beam


Some reinforcement should be provided across the construction joint between the beams and the end diaphragm. This joint will never be in tension, as the soil pressure on the back of the diaphragm will always keep it in compression. Only a nominal amount of reinforcement is therefore needed, and so four T 16 bars protruding from each beam should be sufficient. Alternatively, four prestressing strands can be left long instead of being cut off flush with the end of the beam, with the ends of the strands spread to give a good anchorage. This alternative will simplify manufacture of the beams.

Access to the elastomeric bearings is from the front of the sheet pile wall, and along the capping beam from each side of the SY beams. The use of bearing plinths provides enough space to allow access from three sides of the bearings, and allows inspection of the back of the bearing. The standard of access to the bearings is similar to that available on many bridge piers. Note also that the bearings are in a position where they are automatically protected from water and de-icing salt penetration down the back of the diaphragm.


200Mkk ~~~--~~~~~~~ __ ~. deckslafo

ud diaf'ftragl11 2100 ftigft X 400tftick

S'14 foeal11s

@ 1500 cel1tres

tJaswl11encfoeanl1g ~:.= .. =.~ ... C=====l_~~C=~~

011 COl1crete f'lil1tft

!?.eiltforcel11Cl1t is T16@150 vertical d( ftonz()l1tal footft faces



Mastic seal



This bridge has been designed to be supported on bearings on top of a sheet pile retaining wall. This wall is static, in the sense that it does not move with the expansion and contraction of the bridge deck. No special considerations are therefore needed in its design, except that there will be small horizontal loads from the bearings that must be taken into account, as well as the vertical bearing reaction.

The sheet piles will be driven into the existing ground, which is a very stiff over-consolidated clay. The following undrained shear strengths have been assumed:

cu = 150 kN/m2 cu = 200 kN/m2

near the surface

at the bottom of the sheet piles

Initial design of the sheet pile wall was based on the charts included in the British Steel "Piling Handbook'P", Design calculations were then provided by British Steel's Piling Technical Services, and a 12m pile length was recommended. Their calculations followed the requirements of BD 42/94 "Design of embedded retaining walls and bridge abutments'w, which makes reference to both CIRIAreport 104(16) andBS 5400: Part 3. Finally, the design was verified using the well-known computer program WALLAP.

The choice of pile section is governed by driveability into the very stiff clay. The bending capacity ofthe LX25 piles selected is well in excess of the design moment.

A concrete capping beam is cast on top of the sheet piles. Bearing plinths are cast onto this beam, and elastomeric bearings are bedded onto these plinths. Eight bearings are required at each end of the bridge, one for each SY beam.


Slteet pie rettliltitrg wtlil

Botlt vertictll tlnd Itonzonttll forces (rOflf tlte /letlrings need to /le ttlken into tlccollnt in tlte design Of tlte rettlining wtlii.

MtiX/flfllflflongitlldintil flfoveflfent = TfIfflf (tlterflftli) + 5f1fflf (cree, &: sltrinktlge) = 12f1fflf

An eltlstoflferic /letlring witlt tldetflltlte ctl,tlcit'! willlttlve tlsltetlr stiffite88 Of tI/lOllt 4kN/fIfflf :. MtiX/flfllflf sm Iton'zonttll force per /letlring = 50 kN

rrOflf deck tlntll,!si~ flftiX/flfllflf sm vettictillotid ,er /letlring = 900 kN

rite slteet ,ile wtlil ctln /le designed to resist tltese forces, tiS well es tlte soil pre88l1re, IIsing nomttl/ flfetltods. Design ctllcllltltions tire not ,resented Itere. Dettli/s oftlte design tire sltown /lelow:

1?..otld construction
~{,._ Cofltfacted gmnultlrf/II
cf>' = 40°
Tie rods: 3heet file wtlll Is
anchored 1 fit fe/ow the tOf
6f1t c1eamnce fe/ow
SOffit Of fridge
W5 sheet files, gmde 3355 qF
driven Into existing venj stiff cia,!
'// , Water taNe assuflted
File fenetratlon Is 6f1t fe/ow excdVatlon
gIVing overall lengtH Of 12 fit,
3cale 1:100 Including cafflng fetJfI1.


The wing walls cantilever horizontally from the back of the end diaphragm, and must be designed to resist the outward soil pressure. In classical soil mechanics, ~ is the largest possible ratio of soil pressures in two orthogonal directions, normally vertical and horizontal. This also applies to two orthogonal horizontal directions, in this case pressure against the end diaphragm, and pressure against the wing walls. Full passive pressure is used for the design of the end diaphragm, and this cannot exist without a pressure coefficient of at least one against the wing walls. In order for the design to be consistent, therefore, the wing walls should be designed for soil pressures based on K = 1.

5.8 SKEW

For bridges with no skew, such as the design example, the end diaphragm is designed for passive pressure, and the wing walls for K = 1.

It is important that skew bridges do not rotate in plan due to the soil pressures on the skew abutments. For skews up to

about 30° one design method is to visualise an orthogonal vertical plane in the soil behind the end diaphragm and assume that all horizontal pressures within the block of soil between this plane and the end diaphragm are passive. This plane, shown with dashed lines in the diagrams to the left, thus

represents a virtual orthogonal abutment. A full depth wing wall must be provided, designed for passive pressure, to contain the soil on one side.

Larger skews may require special treatment, and are beyond the scope ofthis design guide.

1111& wtliis


Dettliled ctllcllltltions for tlte W/I1g wtliis tire not presented Iter~ as tltls Is tI simple piece of reinforced concrete design. However; tlte soil pressllres to pe IIsM /11 tltls design tire Indlctlted Pe/ow. The WlI1g wtlils tire designed to ctlntllever honzonttllllj (rom the ptlck of the end dltlphragm,

Wl'ngwtlll ctlntl1ever moment


Pltln on end dltlphragm tlnd wing wtliis

) I

/;;/ t t /(=1

Soil pressllre on WlI1g wtliis




Ptlsslve pressllre

on end dltlphragm




Drainage behind the abutment is important for all types of integral bridge. Cracks are likely to appear in the surfacing between the approach carriageway and the abutment, or at the end of the approach slab if this is provided. Adequate drainage must be provided to deal with any water penetration through such cracks. This is easier to achieve when there is no approach slab, as this water penetration will be at the back of the abutment where drainage is routinely provided. If an approach slab is used, additional drainage may be needed below the end of this slab.

BtJck ojtJfolltmettt


Tlte fon'dge deck wtJtetproof!ltg is colttiltlled dowlt tlte fotJck oftlte eltd ditJ,ltmgm~ tJltd tJ ,orolls Nock drtJilttJge ItJ'Ier is ,ltJced tJgtJiltst tltis, No tJ"rotJclt sltJfo will foe IIsed for tltis foridge. AIt'l wtJter ,eltetmtiOlf tltrollglt crtJckiltg foetweelt tlte fon'dge tJltd tlte tJ"rOtlclt rotJd will tlterefore foe ,icked II, fo'l tlte dmilt tJt tlte foottom oftlte eltd ditJ,ltmgm,



POrollS Nock dmilttJge ItJ'Ier


SctJle 1:.20



This design example is for a three span integral bridge of 60m totallengtli with piled abutments. The central span is 29m, with 15m and 16m side spans. The design calculations are presented on the right-hand pages, with commentary and additional explanation on the left-hand pages. The design follows the step-by-step design process described in Section 4, and these steps are numbered on the calculation pages.

Initial design

This bridge carries a single lane 3.6m carriageway, with 1m footpath each side. Initial design is based on the peA span charts for the various beam ranges, which indicate that Y7 beams at one metre centres are suitable for the 29m central span. Six Y7 beams are used for each span, with a 200mm deck slab, giving an overall construction depth of 1.47m.

Bridge cross-section 1:50

For the outer beams, some designers would prefer to use YE7 edge beams. However, the substantial extra weight of these edge beams leads to extra cost in manufacture, transport and erection, and this was not considered to be justified for this bridge.


Each abutment is supported on six steel H piles, at 1m centres. This means that the pile positions correspond to the positions of the precast beams, although it should be noted that this is a coincidence rather that a necessity. The pile spacing can be selected independently from the beam spacing.



fievtJtlotl iflm't!de 1:500

$tJfetlj PtJrr/ers tlot sltOWtI for dtJr/tlj




Overalllm'tlge letlgtlt Overall decl( widtlt Overall decl( def'tlt

= 60m = 6,6m = L4?m

qrOtltlti cotltiltlotls

BtJckfill of comf'tJcted gratltlltJr fill wltlt <P' = 350 tJtlti tietlsltlj 2 Ol(N / m3 will pe sf'ecifieti for tlse peltltld tlte tJPtltmetlts.

Tlte soil pe/ow tlte tJP/ltmetlts Is firm dtJIj, wltlt a CII of 50 I(N/m2 sear tlte StltftJce, ItlcretJsltlg to 100 I(N/m2 tJt a tief'tft of 20m,

II T020641 0000174 961 II




In calculating the soil pressure, the depth is measured from the top ofthe surfacing; see page 24 for further discussion.

The soil pressure is assumed to act only on the vertical back face of the abutment. This vertical face is narrower than the full width ofthe abutment, because short O.3m thick turned-back wing-walls are attached to each side. The width between these wing-walls available to resist the longitudinal loads is 5.6m.

The movement to mobilise the required horizontal resistance is calculated using the formula in BA 42/96. This formula, however, relates specifically to full height wall abutments which are assumed to rotate about their base. It is clear from the literature that smaller movements are required (at the top of the abutment) when the whole structure moves horizontally, as is the case for shallow abutments. For the same mobilised earth pressure, the movement of an abutment moving horizontally is roughly equivalent to the movement at mid-height of a wall abutment rotating about its base. The movement of a shallow abutment can therefore be taken as half of that calculated according to the formula in BA 42/96.

Rotational movement of wall abutment

Horizontal movement of shallow abutment

BA 42/96 does not contain any reference to a limit on the horizontal movement under braking and traction forces, but the 21 mm calculated here is considered acceptable. This will be reduced slightly by pile and pier resistance. Note also that expected actual movement (with Ym = 1.0) is about 4mm.

This design example gives the worst case for SLS horizontal movement, as maximum traction and braking forces have to be resisted by a very narrow end diaphragm. Most realistic integral bridge designs will therefore have adequate resistance to horizontal forces, and acceptably small longitudinal movements.



Tlte longitudinal load is calculated in accordance witlt BD 3r/88:

Clt1use6.10.1 NO&inaIHAIOt1d = 8!(N/&X60& + 250kN = r30kN

Clause6.10.2 NO&inaIHBIOt1d = 25% x30units X (4x 10kN) = 300kN

Clear/If HA is clear/If critical for tltis pndge.

S1$ Honzontal loading = r30kN X Yt'L X Yr3

= r30x1.0x1.0 = r30kN

Tlte Iteigltt of tlte ahrt&ent is &ade u, fro& tlte end dia,ltmg& to tlte ,recast pea&s, ,Ius tire ,ileca, pdowand tire sUrfacing apove.

Total Iteigltt, H = 1& ();ileca,)+ 1.4r&(deck) + O.l&(surfacing) = 2.6&

Aput&ent widt~ p = VV1dtlt of deck - 2 X 0.2& ();am,et ovemang) - 2 X 0. 3&(wing walls) =6.6&-0.4&-0.6& = 5.6&

Soil resistance = 1)KyH2p = 1) xl(x20kN/&3 X (2.6)2 X 5.6& =Kx3r9kN

bplating to S1$ Itorizontal load, and a"llfing YIII = 0.5 as s,eclfled Plf BA 42/96, tlte retlfliretf soil,ressure COeffiCient is optained:

l(*xylIIx3r9kN= K*x0.5x3r9 = r30kN

:. 1?_etlflired 1(* = 3.85

rorpad:/illwitlt q/ = 35° BA 42/96 giVes I( = 6


K* = 3.85 = (d/O. 05H) 0.4 X 6

d/H = 0.0165

d = 0.0165H =0.0165X2.6 = 0.043&

However, BA 42/96 (or&ula relating 1(* to d/H is a,,!icaple s,ecificaillf to a wall ahrt&ent rotating apout its pase. Onllf Ita/ftlte &ove&ent is retlflired to genemte tlte &1&e force for aput&ents wlticlt &ove Itonzontaillf as Itere. So tlte actual &ove&eltt at 81$ will pe 21&/11, wlticlt iSJust cons!'t/ered acce,taple.


The three spans of this bridge can be designed using the methods set out in the PCA guide "Simple Bridge Design using Prestressed Beams'v", The deck analysis assumes pinned supports at the abutment. It is also assumed that only a small amount of bottom flange reinforcement will be used over the intermediate supports, so that the beams may be taken as simply-supported on the piers as well as at the abutments. Alternatively, the deck slab could be continuous over the piers, with separate simple supports for the beam ends.

Being simply-supported at the abutments, the deck design is basically independent of the abutment design, and is not presented here. The deck design is based on a grillage analysis, and a few results from this analysis are required for the abutment design: the reactions at the abutment for the vertical pile capacity opposite, and the rotation (see the bottom of the opposite page).


Guidance on the design of steel H piles is given in the SCI "Steel bearing pile guide'P". It will be seen later in the calculations that the top 4m or so of the piles are subject to repeated horizontal movements, and so it is safest to ignore this part of the pile in calculating the vertical capacity.

The choice of pile section size is governed by driveability considerations. It will be seen later in the calculations that there is a benefit in keeping the section size as small as possible.


The object of this section of the calculations is to obtain the design criteria for the piles. The piles are assumed to be much more flexible than the bridge deck, so the piles must be able to cope with any horizontal motion and rotation of the abutments. The critical load combinations for the piles are thermal expansion coupled with loads causing downward rotation of the abutment, and thermal contraction coupled with upward rotations. These are both Combination 3 load combinations, in the terminology of BD 37/88. On the next few pages, the various loads that cause expansion, contraction and rotation are analysed in turn, and then combined.

The magnitudes of thermal expansion and contraction are taken from BD 42/96, which allows for movements from the mean position of about 70% of the total temperature range.

Rotation of the abutment due to live load is obtainedfrom.the grillage analysis of the deck. The maximum rotation occurs when an HB vehicle has one of its pairs of axles at midspan.


Tire HfdX/HfIlHf redctiol1 dt tire dfolltHfel1t te retfflired for tire desigl1 of tire fileS, 80 tlri8 re8111t l1eed8 to foe ex.tmcted froHf tire deck dl1dl'f8i8:

MdX. Sjg redctiol1 011 wlrole dfolltHfel1t = 2300kN MdX. Sjg redctiol1 011 ol1e of 8iX.lile8 = 500kN

De8/'g11 rzf.eilesfor verticdllQdd

Tire liles WIll foe de8igl1ed igl10nitg tlte verticdl CdldCit'f of tire t014m, wlriclr 811lject to reledted lronzol1tdl HfOVeHfel1t.

Avemge c, = 80kN/Hf2 foetwem 4Hf dl1d 20Hf foelow grolll1g level.

Adltesiol1 = 0,5 Cv = 0'5x.80kN/~ = 40kN/~

13d8ed 011 tlte wlrole leriHfeter ofd 8teel .254X.254 H lile,

Cdldcit'f = (.2D + 413) X. 0,5 c, = (6 X. 0.25Hf) x. 40kN/~ = 60kN/Hf

Cdldcit'f ofd 20Hf 10l1g lile = (20Hf- 4Hf) X. 60kN/Hf = 960kN

Tlti8 giVe8 ,1 8tJfet'f fdctor Of 2, wlticlr i8dCCCj/tdfo/e.

HonzoJftdl HfoveHfel1t8 dl1d rotdtiol1 dt pile Iredti.


Honzol1tdl HfOVeHfel1ts dl1d rotdti0l18 dlle to vdrioll8 10dds l1eed to foe cdlcllidted to ofrtdil1 tire criticdl Cd8e8.·

(i) Tlrel1#dl eXfdl18iOlt

TlrerHfdl eXfdl18iol1 i8 fodsed ol113A 4.2/96 8tmil1 of 0, 0004.2 Totdl eXfdl18iol1 = 0, 0004.2 X. 60flt = 0.025Hf

= 13HfHf dt edclr el1d, froHf Hfedl1108iti0l1

(ii) TlrerHfdl cOIttrdctiol1

Tlri8 i8 tdkel1 ,18 tire 8tJHfe ,18 tire tlrerHfdl eXfdl18iol1 = 13f1tflt dt edclr el1d

(iii) COHf/J;itdtiol1 3 live 10dd

Tlte HfdX/fltllflt rotdtiol1 dt tire dPtrtHfel1t dtre to !lVe lOt/d i8 fOlll1d froHf tire grilldge dl1dl'f8i8 to foe.' AfolltHfel1t rotdtiol1 = 0.00038 mdidl18 (trl1{dctored, dtre to H13 velricle)

The temperature gradient diagrams for both positive and negative temperature distribution are shown on Figure 9 in BD 37/88. These are multiplied by the coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete (assumed as usual to be 12x 1 0.6), and by the Young's modulus for concrete (here assumed to be a uniform 34000 Nzmm'), to obtain the stresses that would occur in a fully restrained deck.

The axial and moment components of each part of the stress distribution are calculated and added together to give the total axial restraint force, and the total restraint moment.

In this bridge, the abutments provide little axial restraint or moment restraint. Both the axial and moment components ofthe stress distribution with therefore be relieved by expansion and curvature of the deck respectively. In the calculation opposite, the deck is assumed to be simply-supported at the piers, so that the calculation of the abutment rotation is straightforward. If a large amount of continuity reinforcement is provided in the bottom of the beams over the piers, the rotation will be reduced. A more rigorous calculation of the rotation could be used, although the simple calculation presented here will always be conservative and therefore safe.

Negative temperature differences cause a small amount of sagging in the deck. Strictly speaking, this also needs to be calculated, although the effect is very small. In the interests of brevity, calculations are not presented here.


(IV) Temlertltlfre difference

PositiVe temlert1tJlre difference WI/I giVe Itogglng t1t tlte ends oftlte forldge.

Tlte temlertltlfre dlstn'hrtlon tltrolfglt tlte deck cross-section Is giVen In 13D 37/~ Flglfre 9- Tlte stresses tltt1t wOlfld OCCHr In t1 (ttillf restrtllned deck t1re sltown 0If tlte n'gltt ltt1nd side oftlte dlt1grt1m foelow. Tlte stress dlstrlfoJltlon Itt1S foeen divided Into fiVe folocks for tlte Ilftposes of ct1lclflt1tlng tlte t1X/t11 t1nd moment restrtllnt.

1 .2

0 . .200111

It r-::=======--13.5°(;

1 ~o.15J1f L

-- 1t2 ~ 0 . .25", -


3.0'(; -------


Cross section

Temlemtlfre dlstrlfolftlon

Stresses In {lfillf restrtllned deck = EaT

A If 0' AO' AO'If
1 1.Ox.0.15 =0.15 0.604 1.12 0.168 0.102
2 1.Ox.0.15 =0.15 0.629 .2.15 0.323 0.203
3 1. OXo. 05 = 0. 05 0.504 1.10 0.055 0.028
4 0.42XO.2 =0.081 0.379 0.49 0.041 0.016
5 0.75X0.2 = 0.15 -0.724 0.51 0.077 -0.055
0.664 0.292 Tlte t1X/t11 force to foe relet1sed = IAO' = 0. 66MN

Moment to foe relet1sed = IAcrlf = 0. 292MN

(t1sslfmlng onllfnomlnt11 restrt1lnt to rott1tlon t1t Intemtedldte slfllortS, so tltdt end slt1ns t1re effectiVelIf slmlilf-slfll0rted),

CJlIVt1tlfre ct1lfsed folf moment relet1se.'

DeckclflVt1tlfre, K = M/EI = 0.292MNm/(34000MN/m2x O. 186m4)

= 46 x I 0-6 m-l

R.ott1tlon t1t end of slt1n = (L/2) X K = 8m X 46 X 10-6 m-l

= 0.00037

Creep and shrinkage are difficult to quantify with any degree of accuracy. A method is given in BS 5400: Part 4 in Appendix C, and this is used here. Values have to be estimated for the various coefficients, and this is not always easy. To obtain the results quoted opposite, values for the coefficients were used as given in the appendix to Hambly and Nicholson "Prestressed Beam Integral Bridges'T", These are summarised below, and may be taken as typical for most beam and slab bridges.

Slab shrinkage

kL = 275 X 10-6 k, = 0.8

k, = 0.55

~ 1

Ecs = 120 X 10-6

for normal air exposure

cement content 350kglm3, water/cement ratio 0.42 effective thickness 400mm

whole life

Beam shrinkage kL = 275 X 10-6 k, = 0.75

k, = 0.75

~ = 0.6

Ecs = 90 X 10-6

for normal air exposure

cement content 400kglm3, water/cement ratio 0.37 effective thickness 250mm

from three months to infinity

Beam creep factor kL = 2.3

~ = 1.6

k, = 0.75

k, = 0.8

~ = 0.6

<p = 1.3

for normal air exposure

transfer after three days at 20°C

cement content 400kglm3, water/cement ratio 0.37 effective thickness 250mm

from three months to infinity

In these calculations, only creep occurring after the beams are made composite is included. BS 5400: Part 4 suggests a value of2 for the creep factor, but this applies to the whole life of the beam. The value of 1.3 used here for creep after the slab is cast is therefore consistent with this.

The permanent stresses in the precast beam (due to dead load and prestress) are calculated, and show a variation from 5. 7N/mm2 at the top to 7. 7N/mm2 at the bottom. This is only a small variation, and justifies the assumption of uniform stress in the precast beam for the purposes of calculating the creep strain. The sophistication of this analysis could easily be increased by dividing the beam up into several elements, instead of using a single element and assuming uniform stress as here.

The composite nature of the beams and the slab mean that each cannot shrink and creep independently. The individual strains are distributed over the composite section in the calculations opposite. One way of visualising this process is to calculate the imaginary forces that would be required in the beam and slab individually to overcome their creep and shrinkage strains. These forces can then be released onto the composite section, and the resulting strains approximate to the actual strains that will occur.


= 1.20 x.. 10-6

= 150 x 10-6 tottJllollg terHt shillKtJge = 90 x.. 10-6 tJfter sltJP is ctJst,

= 1. 3 tJfter sltJP is ctJst

$ltJp shrillKtJge Ccg BetJHt shrillKtJge Ccg

$tre88es ill the frectJst petJHt lIeed to pe ctJ/cllltJted:

DetJd 10tJd = 0. 0.21 MN/Ht fer petJHt

DetJdlotJdHtoHtellt = wF/8 = 0.0.21 x.. 162/8 = 0.67-MNHt Prestre88 desigll IIses illititJl tellsioll of 3. 65MN tJt tJlI eccelltricitlf Of 0 . .2.2 4Ht

Prestre88HtOHtellt = 3.65 x.. -0 . .2.24 =-0.817- MNHt

$treggtJttof, crt = P/A +M/Zt = 3.65/0.537-+(0.67--0.817-)/0.1.28

= 6.8 - 1.1 = 5.7- N/flfHt2

cr" = 6.8 + 0.9 = 7:7- N/flfflf2

.', $tregg ill frectJst petJHt dlle to fel711tJllellt IMds is retJsolltJNIf IIlIifor~ tJlld CtJlI pe tJffroX/HttJted to the celftroidtJl8tre88 of 6.8 N/flfflf2

:. Creef8trtJill cee = ((3/£28) x..l/J = (6.8/34000) x.. 1.3 = .260 x.. 10-6

Now tJffllf these creef tJlld shrillKtJge stmills to the cOflffosite sectioll tJlld di8triPllte:

'1= 1.37-0



If 0.57-9


C 1.20x..10-6 35Ox..10-6

£4 = 34000 x.. 0 . .2 = 6800MN

£ = 90x..10-6 +.260 x.. 10-6 = 350 x 10-6

£4 = 34000 x.. 0.537- = 18.260MN

£4 6800 18.260 .2.5060

£4c 0.816

6.39 -1.37-4

7:.21 MN - 0. 90.2 MNfIf

The combined long term effects of creep and shrinkage are found to be a rotation of 0.00114 radians and a horizontal displacement of 8.6mm at each abutment.

Note that this rotation is sigificantly less than the average figure of 0.003 suggested in Section 2.3. This rotation would be appropriate to the long central span of this bridge, for which the prestress is greater (in the same depth of beam) leading to greater curvature, and the span is about double leading to a proportionate increase in rotation at the ends. For these reasons, the rotation has been calculated specifically for this end span, instead of using a standard value of 0.003.

In calculating the rotation, the end spans have been assumed to be simplysupported at the piers. Any continuity over the pier will reduce the rotation, so this calculation is conservative.

ULS Load Combination 3 for the piles

Design criteria for the piles are obtained from combinations of the loads calculated above. The piles are designed to BS 5400: Part3, in which 'Yo is applied to the strength rather than the load, so the ULS combination here include 'YtL but not 'Yo. Two combinations need to be considered as illustrated below:




(d) Deck exttJlfslolf ,Ius tiowlfWtJrtl tJP/ftHlClft rottJt/olf

0.00151 --------8; ~ O.026m


Afflr total "force" alld "1110I11ellt" to COl11fos/te sect/of!.'

$tra/lls at tOf alld bottol11 of sect/oil are

e, = F/EA +M/llt = (7.21/2.5060)-0. 902/(34000 x o eri)

= (288-9r)x.10-6 = 190x.l0-6

e, = F/LA + M/fZp = (7.21/2.5060)- 0.902 /(34000x.-0.23.5)

=(288+113)x.10-6 = 400 x. 10-6

CUIVature1(= M/LI = 0. 902/(34000x.0. 186) = 143 X. 10-6111-1

1?.otat/OIl atelld of Sf all = (L/2) X. 1( = (16/2) X. 143 X. 10-6111-1

= 0.00114

Ovemll sltortell/lIg due to sltr/IIKage alld creef = 288 x.l 0-6 Movel11elltateacifelld = (L/2) X. 288 X. 10-6 = (60111/2) X. 288 X. 10-6 = 0.0086111

COI11/Jilletilton'z.ollall11ovel11ellts alld roMtlolls at tlL25

(a) Tlterl11al expallsloll alld dowllward roMtloll

Max.ltorlzfJlltal 1110Vel11ellt at file Itead = 0.0 13 (tlterl11al expallsloll) X. YfL = 0.013 X. 1.3

= O.Olrl11

Max. dowllward rotatloll at file Itead = 0. 00038 (due to LL) X. YfL = 0. 00038 X. 1.3

= 0.00049

(b) ColftractkJII alld IIfward roMt/OIl

Max.ltorlzolltal 1110Vel11ellt at file Itead = 0. 0086 (/ollg temt sltortellillg) +0.013~ltffl11~rolftmctm~x.~ = 0.0086 + 0.013 X. 1.3

= 0.026111

= 0.00114 (creef eX sltrlllKage) +0.0003rif~#Ne~l11~mmmd~em~e)x.~ =0.00114 +0.0003rx.1.0



The choice of pile section is governed by driveability considerations, as explained on page 42.

Note that the pile bending capacity is substantially smaller than the moments in the bridge beams, justifying the assumption of designing the spans as simplysupported at the abutments.

The simplest method of checking the piles for bending is to use the equations of Matlock & Reese, as quoted in CIRlA report 103(16), which are based on the assumption that the soil is a Winkler medium (a series of independent horizontal springs) which does not vary with depth.

The main difficulty with this analysis is in estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction.CIRIA report 103 gives some guidance, and this has been used in this example. Values may also be provided by the soil investigation. A variation of 10-fold in K only results in a variation in pile moment by a factor of 3, so fortunately the design is not too sensitive to the choice of soil parameters.

The soil at the top of the piles is firm clay, with a Cu of 50kN/m2(in fact, only the top few metres are signiftcant, so the fact that the stiffness increases with depth does not much affect this calculation). CIRlA report 103 suggests a coefficient of subgrade reaction of K = 3 MN/m2 for this clay.

CIRlA report 103 also quotes non-dimensionalised equations relating the displacement and rotation of the pile-head to horizontal force and moment, and these equations are used here. The equations are rewritten opposite in matrix form, and inverted to find the force and moment for the applied displacement and rotation.

The horizontal force and bending moment that the bridge must apply to the pile heads is found by substituting the ULS displacements and rotations previously calculated into these equations.

---- ... -


Pile des/III for pelldittg

Tlte tiles 1I0W lIeed to pe desiglled for tltese movemellts alld rottJtiOlls, Tlte tiles csose« are .254 X .254 X 71tg/m steel H tiles odelltated to pelld apoltt tlte millor axis. Tltese tiles Itave tlte followillg troterties.'

f. = .205000 MN/m2

I = 3451 cm4 f.l = ?07 MNm2 Z =.268,1 cm3 S s: .2182/4

= 34,51 x : 0-6 m4 apoltt tfte minor axis

= .268 X 10-6 m3 for minor axis pelldillg = 405 X 10-6 m3 (j;lastic modltllts)

Bending resistance (accordillg to BS5400: Part 3 claltse 9. 9.1..2) for tltis comtact sectiol!.' MD = S (j'l/'Ym 'Yf3 =405 X 10-6 X 355 / (1..20 X 1. I}

= 0.109 MNm

Tlte coefficiellt Of sltPgrade reactioll for tlte clar near tlte tot oftlte tile is estimated Itsing CfR/A retort 103:

Coefficient Of sltPgrade ret/efiolf, K = 3MN / m2

CltartJctedstic lengtlt, T = (f.1/K)1/4 = 1 . .24m

R..estonse to Itonzolltal force alld momellt at tlte groltnd lille is:

It = (HoT3/f.!) X 1.41 + (MoT2/f.!) X 1.00 = 0.380Ho + 0..217Mo e = (HoT2/f.!) x-1.00 + (MoT/f.!) X -1.41 = -0..217Ho - o..248Mo

(elt) = (0.380


0..217) (Ho)

0..248 Mo

/I, Ho :\ I----?>/ d e, Mo






(HO) = (5..26

Mo -4.60

This calculation indicates that the ultimate bending resistance of the piles is exceeded during maximum thermal contraction. It should be noted that this will not happen every year, but. only a few times during the lifetime of the bridge. This could quite reasonably be accepted. Recent US research has also shown that fatigue damage is not an issue, and that steel piles perform adequately even when yielded in bending many times. Furthermore, even if fatigue cracks appear in the pile flanges, they will still be able to carry the vertical load, and they will simply attract less moment.

If it is not thought desirable to allow the piles to yield, a softer soil can be substituted for the top 4m or so of the length of the pile, although this adds significantly to the cost of construction. Below this depth (approx 3T), pile deflections and moments are only 10% of those at the pile head, and so will always be sufficiently small. For this bridge, the piles are driven through oversize prebored sleeves, 4m long, which are later filled with a loose material. It is important to ensure that repeated movements do not compact and stiffen this fill. A loose fill with uniform particle size is therefore used. Leaving a void inside the sleeves is another option.

The piles have also been analysed by computer by using a series of horizontal Winkler springs on a (vertical) beam model. This allows the spring stiffness to be varied with depth, and demonstrates that the soil stiffness below about 4m has very little effect. Otherwise no further useful results were obtained by this analysis, as the computer model merely approximates the analytical solution.

A further computer analysis of the piles was carried out using a standard soil mechanics program, in this case W ALLAP. Again, similar results were obtained, and there seems little to be gained using either of these computer methods in this context.



TherHfal expansion giving

II = 0.01711t and () = -0.00049

Ho = 0.09 2MN Mo = -0.082MNIIt


Therlltal contraction glving

II = -0.02611t and () = a 00151

Ho = -0.144MN Mo = a 132MNIIt

These figllres indicate that the IIltilltate pending resisttince ofthc ,ifes wOllld pe cxcccdcd PIf apollt 20% dllring lItaX/1lt1l1It therlltal contraction. Thc ,088/'/;;ilitlf of ,iles Ifielding will PC elilltinatcd PIf sllPstitllting asoftcr soil for thc to, 4111. This Will PC achievcd PIf dn'ving the ,iles throllgh ,rcpored slceves, which can latcr pe fillcd with a loosc lItaterial. 7?.epcating thc apovc anallfsis with a lower vaillc of K glves alltolltcntjllst pelow M, in c0l!lllnction with ahonzontal forcc of apollt 0. 08MN.

Indicatlvc dettlils arc shown pelow:

600 dialltctcr stcel tllPes, 411t long. To, levcUlIst pelow,ilcca,.

Aftcr dn'ving ,ilcs throllgh cllt,tlf tllPes, tllPes arc to PC filled with a collt,rc88iPlc lItaterial.

No conttict pctwccn tllPes and ,ifeca,.


The pilecaps are a straightforward exercise in reinforced concrete design, so calculations are not presented in detail.

The loads on the pilecap are:

• The vertical load to be carried by the piles.

• The horizontal load at the top of the piles. This is taken as O.08MN per pile, with the piles in sleeves as discussed on the previous page.

• Moment at the top of the pile. As this is close to the plastic capacity of the pile, and may sometimes actually be the plastic moment, it is important to make sure that the pile yields before the pilecap. The design moment for the pilecap is therefore taken as the plastic moment, multiplied by a load factor of 1.2.

• Soil pressure. BA 42/96 specifies the use of passive pressure, and although this is very conservative, it is simple and there is no great penalty in terms of extra reinforcement.

Four shear studs on each flange are sufficient to transfer the moment between pile and pilecap. Note that the web in fact provides extra moment capacity by providing a bearing surface against the concrete. Six shear studs are actually provided on each flange, so that there is adequate capacity for the vertical load as well as the moment.




Tltc I'ile to I'llcctJl' conncctiolf, tJnd l'ilcctJl' to h1dgc pctJm cOlfncctiolf will PC dcsigncd to gcnertJtc tltc I'ltJstic momcnt in tlte I'ilcs, witlt tJ 10tJd ftJctor of 1.2

Mf' = S (J'I = 405 X. 10-6 X. 355 = 0.144MNm

Dcsign momcnt = Mf X. 'YfL = 0.144 X. 1.2

= 1J"3MMm

Pile cmpcdment lengtft in lilectJl' = 0.7m TtJKc momcnt on a levcr tJl'm = 0.5m

:. HonzonttJlrctJctions rCtfJlircd= 0.173MNm / 0.5m = 0.35MN

T!1f 4 sltctJr studs (22 ¢ X. 100 long), witlt nomintJl ctJl'tJcit'f of 0.12 6MN ctJclt (from BS5400: PtJrt 5). /4ltimtJtc ctJl'tJcit'f = 4 X. 0.126/ 'Yilt =4x,,0.126/1.2= 0.42 MN

a 35MN - -s- 1;11-;1

• 1 II 1


Tltis is grctJtcr tlttJn tlte rettflirecf ctJl'tJcit'f, so four sltctJr studs tJrc sufficicnt.

For rei/tforccmcnt dcsign of tltc l'ilectJf, tltc worst case will PC if tltc I'lles 'field dunitg titel'mtJI eXftJnsiolf, tJS soill'rcssure must PC tJdded to tlte momcnt from tlte I'ile. Tlte cntictJII'0sition is tite constructionJoilft, tJt tJ del'tlt of 1. 6111. Tltc l'ilectJl' extcnds down to 2.6111.

GtJlcultJte soill'rCSSure.'

BA 42/96 sl'ecifies tittJt sittJllow tJPutments sltould pe designed for I'tJ88ivc I'rcssure.

I( = 6


Pre88ure tJt 2. 6m dejltlt,

I' = K'Yz

= 6 X. 0.019MN/m3 x.2.6m = 0.296 MN/m2

NomlittJl moment tJt petJm SOffit tJt 1. 6m del'tlt = 0. 128MNm/m widtlt

\ The maximum ULS moment will be level with the soffit of the beams. This is calculated opposite, and reinforcement is provided down the back of the abutment accordingly. Moment in the opposite direction, causing tension at the front of the abutment, is significantly lower, as no passive pressure is involved. However, the lever arm to the reinforcement is also lower, as the reinforcing bars have to be positioned to allow for the embedment of the beams into the abutment. So, for simplicity, the same reinforcement is used front and back of the abutment.

Shear reinforcement is required below the level of the precast beams. This may be designed in various ways, but in this case vertical links have been provided designed using a simple truss analogy:


tor 1#1 widtft of li/ectJI (tJlld olle lile) /1lti#ltJte #lO#lellt level witft $offit of foetJ#I

MULS = 0, 128MN#I X, YfL ($Oil Ir(f$$Ure)

+ 0, 173MN#I (file #lo#lellt, illc!udillg Yf)

+ O. 08MN X, 1#1 (/1LS lile $ftetJr)

= (0,1.28 X, 1.5) + 0,173 + 0,08

= 0,45 MN#I/#I widtft

1?..eillforce#lellt de$igll follow$13255400: PtJrt 4: c!tJU$e 5.3 fo = 1.0#1

d = 0,6#1 for 0,65#1 tftick,ilectJ, tJlld elld ditJlftrtJg#l til = 30 N/#I#l2

Z = 0.55#1 tJPprox,

Mil = 0'45MN#I/#I required

As = MII/(0'87frz)= 0'45/(400x,0'55)= 0.002050#12/#1 = 2050 #1#12/#1

us« 120 @ 150 (frovidillg 2090 #1#12/#1) vertictJlreillforce#lellt ill fotJck ftJce oftfte elld ditJlftmg#l tJlld li/ectJI. ror $i#ll/icitlf, ,rovide tftlS reill(orce#lellt for tfte full 2.5#1 fteigftt, tJlld tJI$o ill tfte {rOllt ftJce (evell tftougft #lO#lellt i$ $#ltJl/er tftere)

MtJX/#lu#l $ftetJr ocaas il1 pi/ectJP foetweell retJctioll$ {rO#l top tJlld footto#l gem of $ftetJr $fud$. 25ftetJr acmes tfte cOII$tructiolljoillt foetweell tfte pl/ectJP tJlld tfte elld dl'tipftmg#l #lU$t tJI$O foe cftecked

25ftetJr rdl/force#lellt i$ retfflired ill tfte li/ectJ,. VertictJI/;itk$ foetweell tfte lileg WI/I foe U$ed ill tfti$ case. At tfte cOII$tructiolljoillt, $trffieiel1t $ft&Jr ctJltJeit'! i$ ,rovided fo'! tfte {rOllt tJl1d fotJck ftJce vertictJlrelit(orce#lellt.

25ftt1l1ktJge cOlltrolrelitforce#lellt i$ required tJlolIg tfte /ellgtft of tfte li/ectJI tJlld elld dl'tilftmgl11, tJ$ tfti$ i$ ctJ$t lit $ttJges, tftU$ regtmilliitg $ftt1l1ktJge of tJII fout tfte fir$t $ttJge (tfte lilectJl) rro#l c!tJu$e 5.8. 9:

As = 0'005(Ac- 0.5Aco) = 0.005(0,65#1- 0.5 X, 0.15#1) = 0,00288#12/#1 tottJI

= 1440 #1#12/#1 etJcft ftJce

:. /1$e 116 @ 150 ftorizollttJl $teel lit etJcft ftJce to cOlltrol cmckillg due to $ftrillktJge tJlld tfter#ltJI #love#lellt.

-- -_ ._ I _

Reinforcement details are shown on the opposite page for the abutment in this design example. The precast beams are embedded 200mm into the end diaphragm, which allows a generous area to seat the beams onto the pilecap. Some continuity reinforcement is required at the bottom of the beams for when the abutment rotates upward. This is provided by four T20 bars projecting from each beam. The difficulty during construction of this abutment will be the placement of the beams with this projecting reinforcement between the starter bars coming up from the pilecap.

An alternative arrangement is shown below. The whole abutment is wider, and this allows a much longer beam embedment. Continuity is provided by threading bars through web holes in the beams. This avoids the use of projecting reinforcement, which should make placement of the beams, as well as manufacture, much simpler.

900 #tIck 8lfti tiltlpllrtldHf &..pl18Ctlp


tltrolfdll W8P 110/8$


R.e1ttforcement dettJlI.s 1:20

T20@1.50 petween petJm.s


6 .shetJr .stlld.s on etJch fltJnge 22¢ )(100


6.50 thick x 2.500 high end dltJfhmgm &.fl!ectJf

T16@1.50 hon'zonttJl reinforcement

4T20 frejectlng (rom petJm end.s

~ Con.strttctlonJolnt

T20@1.50 vertlctJl reinforcement


II 2.54)(2.54)(r 1

II H f/!e,s



This design example is for a single span integral bridge with full height wall abutments. The overall form of the structure is a portal frame. As for the other design examples, the design calculations are presented on the right-hand pages, with commentary and additional explanation on the left-hand pages. The design follows the step-by-step design process described in Section 4, and these steps are numbered on the calculation pages.

Initial design

This bridge carries a single 7.3m carriageway, with 1.75m footpaths each side, and has a clear span of 12m. Because of the short span, a solid slab deck has been chosen. Referring to the PCA span charts for TY beams, it is clear that TY5 beams are suitable. These beams are placed at O.765m centres, and this defines the bridge cross-section; fifteen TY5 beams are needed to produce the required deck width. Concrete infill is placed between the beams, together with a 75mm topping, forming a 675mm thick solid slab.

Alternatively, the TY5 beams could have been used in a beam and slab configuration, but the solid slab leads to a shallower deck and simpler connection details at the ends.


Abutments are full height reinforced concrete retaining walls on spread footings, and provide a 6m vertical clearance below the soffit ofthe bridge. They are 11.46m wide, the same as the soffit of the deck slab, allowing O.17m parapet overhang each side of the deck.



tievtltiou Q(!?rk/ge 1:125

Note: Pt:mJ/let aud sttfet'f barrier uot sltowu,

S/lau = 12m


6, Om vertical clearauce

t 1,0m

! 1. Om base tltickuess

4, Om pase widtlt


Wall tltickuess is 1. Om tit to/l

2, Om at bottol11

Siugle dear s/ltlU = 12,0111 Deck widtlt = 11. 8m Vertical cletJrauce = 6, Om

Overall leugtlt of structure at deck level = 14m

R..etaiued SOIl is grauularf/II witlt ¢' = 35° aud uuit weigltty = 20kN/m3,

Tlte eX/stiug grouud below tlte pase of tlte abutmeut walls is medium deuse stlud aud grave!, wit It tlU allowable beariug /lressure Of 250kN/m2,


Longitudinal bridge loads are resisted by the soil pressure behind the abutment wall. The movement required to mobilise this soil pressure is calculated here, to check that the abutment has adequate capacity to resist the longitudinal loads without excessive movements.

Note that HB loading is critical for this short bridge, whereas HA is critical in the other design examples.

BA 42/96 gives the following pressure distribution on the back of a wall abutment:

In order to calculate the movement needed to generate the required horizontal load, the top half of this diagram will be assumed to be available to resist longitudinal forces at deck level.

Active forces on the other abutment are of similar magnitude to the longitudinal traffic force on this type of bridge, and so are included in the calculation.

This bridge has an inclined back face to the abutment, so the passive pressure coefficient I is slightly reduced from the value of 6 which would apply to a vertical abutment. This reduction will be seen to be advantageous in the calculations for bending moment

in the wall. BA 42/96 gives values to be used for ~ for inclined as well as vertical abutments.


Stet 1: Hon'zoifttlll11ovel11elft

Tlte 10lfgitlldilftll ltigltWtllj lotlds to /Je resisted /JIj tlte tI/Jlltl11elft tire ctllcllltlted ilf tlccordtllfce witlt 8D37/88:

Citlllse 6.10.1 NOl11ilftll HA lotld = 8kN/111 X 14111 + 250kN = 362 kN

Citlllse 6.10. 2 NOl11ilftll H8 lotld = 25% X 4511lfits X (4 X 10kN) = 450 kN

/If tltis CtlSe, H8 is critictll.

SLS 10lfgitlldilftlilotld = 450kN X Y(L = 450 x t. 0 = 450 kN

Tor Sll11tllcit~ tlSSlll11e trCSSllre (rOI11 tot Ittl/f of wtlll resists tlte 10lfgitlldilftlllotld.

Ttlkilfg tlte tressllre ditlgrtll11 (ro1118A 42/96, tlte tot Ittl/f oftlte wtlll IttlS tllf etlrtlt trCSSllre coefficielft of I(~

H = 7. 8!11 tI/Jove tlte /Jtlse

so 10lfgitlldilftll forces will/Je tlSSlll11ed to /Je resisted /JIj tlte tot

H/2= 3.9111



SOlI tressure = I(*yz

SOI1 resisttllfce force = f21(*y1t2/J = 1(* X f2 X 20kN/1113 X (3.9111)2 X 11.46111

= 1(* x : 740kN

Aftlljilfg Yilt = 0.5 to I( (tiS stecified ilf 8A 42/96 for resistllfg /Jmkilfg forces), tllfd etfjltltllfg to tlte SLS Itonzolfttll force tillS tlte tlctlVe soil trCSSllre Olf tlte otlter tI/Jlltl11elft:

1(* Yilt Xl 740kN = 450kN + f21(11 y1t2/J

1(* X 0.5 Xl 740kN = 450kN + f2 X 0.27 X 20kN/1113 X (3. 9111)2 xll. 46111

1(* X 870kN = 450kN + 470kN

1(* = 1. 06 Is retfjlired to resist 10lfgltlldilftlllOtlds.

Tor /Jtlckf/II witlt ¢' = 35 ° 8A 42/96 gives

1(, = 5 for tllf tI/Jutl11elft witlt 10° forwtlrd ilfclilftltiolf 1(* = 1.06 = (d/0.05H)0,4 x5

d/H = 0.00103

d = 0.00103H = 0. 00103 X 7.8111 = 0.008111

., LOlfgltlldllftll 1t!(Jltwtllj lotldilfg CtlllSes 1110Vel11elfts Of tI/JOllt 8111111 tit tlte tI/Jtrtl11elfts, wlticlt Is cOlfsidered tlCCttttl/J/e.


The bridge deck is rigidly connected to the top of the wall abutments in this bridge. The walls are thicker than the deck, and are therefore significantly stiffer. It is clear that the moment restraint provided by the abutments at the ends of the span will be important in the deck design. The main difficulty is in the assessment of the combined stiffness of the wall and the retained soil.

Detailed deck design calculations are not included in this example. However, it is suggested that a standard grillage model for the deck be extended to include the abutment wall and an elastic representation of the soil stiffness. The computer model would thus become a 3-D frame model rather than a grillage. A simple two dimensional version of a possible model is illustrated opposite as an example. The horizontal stiffness of the soil is modelled by linear elastic (Winkler) springs, to give a sufficiently realistic representation of the soil stiffness to estimate the effect of the abutment on the span moments.

For guidance on appropriate values of spring stiffnesses for this type of model, see (for example) Hambly: "Bridge Deck Behaviour'P". This suggests a range of Young's modulus of 40 to l20MN/m2 for material with <P' = 35° at 10m depth. For this analysis, a mid-range value of 80MN/m2 has been used.

An alternative method of approach would be to assess the stiffness of the retaining wall and its retained soil by using a soil mechanics program. Values for horizontal and rotational stiffness at the top ofthe wall could be obtained and springs with these stiffnesses could be included at the ends of a standard grillage model of the deck.

As well as live loads, both temperature and creep restraint loads have to be applied to the computer model. The derivation of temperature difference loading and the creep restraint moment are explained over the next few pages, as they are also required for the abutment design. It is worth noting that the worst case for sagging moment at mid-span will always include the creep restraint moment.

-- - - --- -


Ste,.2: Deckdesijll

For tlte decK desiglt tI sttllldtlrd gnlltlge model IttlS peell exlellded Illto tltree dlmellslolls to IlIclHde tlte tlPHtmellt wtlil tllld till eltlstlc rCf'resellttltloll oftlte soil st/ffllC$$. A slm,le two dlmellslolltll versloll of tftls model (re,reselltlllg tI 1m widtft Of prldge tllld tlPHtmellt) Is sltOWII PeiOw. Tlte ltonZOllttll st/ffllegg Of tlte soil Is modelled hi five 111Iet1r eltlstlc (WiIlKler) s,rllIg$,

liCVtltloll Of com,Hter model of decK tllld tlPHtmellts

For tfte tlhrtmellts wltft Iteiglt~ H = 7: 81f1, st/ffllegges Ittlve peell tliloctlted to etlclt s,rlng Ptlsed 011 NOCKS of soil 1m wide; 1..56m Itlglt (HI.5 = s,rllIg s,tlclng Hsed 011 tltls mode/), tlnd r.8m 1000g (H) A '10HlIg'g ModHIHS of80MNlm2 IttlS pee II tlggHmedfortlte soIl tlttl de,tlt of 101f1, vtlrljlllg IllIetlr/Ij wltft de,tlt.

g,rlllg st/ffllC$$, K = .tAIL

= (80MNlm2 X z110m) X (1m X 1 . .56m) I 7: 8m = 1.6MNlm2 xde,tlt

DecK desigll Ctlll 1I0w,roceed III tlte 1I0rmtli Wtl~ PHt Is 1I0t ,resented Itere.

Tlte followlllg resHlts from tlte decK design tllld retlfllred Itlter In tlte tlhltmel!t desigll ctllcllltltions:

Foretlclt T'I.5 petlm:

DL momellt SDL momellt

= 0..2.23 MNm = 0.033MNm

Prestr(f$$llIg force = .2.08 MN tlfter trtlll8(er nsses

tit eccelltrlcltlj = a. 100m pelow centroId = a. 1.2 3m tlPove sOffit.


Thermal expansion

Thermal expansion causes outward movement of 3mm at the top of each abutment. The increase in soil pressure behind the abutment can be estimated using the formula in BA 42/96, which gives similar results to published charts. To illustrate this point, a version of the diagram relating soil pressure coefficient to movement published in the CBDO report is reproduced overleaf, redrawn for ~ = 5. It will be seen that the calculated movement for this short bridge is very near the left-hand edge of the diagram. A single movement of 3mm at the top of an abutment would lead to a soil pressure coefficient K* = 0.7. This is very similar to the value of 0.71 calculated according to BA 42/96 on the opposite page.

The inclined back of the abutment wall allows the use of~ = 5, rather than the value of~ = 6 which would be appropriate to a vertical wall. BA 42/96 gives information on how ~ varies with wall inclination.

Unfortunately, the mechanisms involved in repeated small strains in the soil are not well understood. It is believed that pressures can increase after many hundreds of cycles. Pending further research, the Highways Agency have specified a lower limit on K* of one third of~. In this case this gives a value ofK* over twice what would be appropriate for a single movement. This minimum value may be conservative, and it is possible that it may be revised in the future.

Soil pressures based on ~/3 are much higher than would be used for a standard retaining wall of similar height. In order to be able to resist these high pressures, the walls of this bridge have been made very thick, but this should not have serious cost implications.

There are various methods available to reduce the soil pressure on the back of the wall. For instance, a compressible filler can be placed against most of the back of the wall, just allowing the soil to act directly against the top 2m. Another alternative is to design the wall to be flexible, so that the pressure is relieved by flexure of the wall. This solution, however, would require a sophisticated analysis of the soil pressure, and the effect of many hundreds ofloading cycles may be impossible to predict.

However, this design example is intended to demonstrate that it is possible to produce a simple and economic portal frame integral bridge design strictly in accordance with BA42/96.


Step 3:

Tlterltt()1 eX/!()nSion ()nd cotttmction lo()d colttflin()tions

V()rious lo()ds need to pe c()lcul()ted to pe used in tltese lo()d coIttPin()tion8.

(!) Telttfer()ture CXf()nsion

Tltis lo()ding is t()/(en frOItt BA 42/96, wlticlt sfeci(ies a stmin of 0. 00042 Tot()1 eX(J()nsion for wltole lengtlt - O. 00042 x 141tt = 0.005 91tt Honzont()1 Ittovelttent ()t e()clt end = -!J x. 0.005 91tt = 0. 00301tt

TltefJH()1 eX(J()nsion C()uses () 1tt()X/IttUItt of 31tt1tt Ittovelttent frOItt tlte Itte()n fositlon ()t tlte tOf of e()clt ()Putlttent. Tltls Ittovelttent c()uses ()n incre()se In soil fressure. Tlte soil fressure for wltlclt tlte ()Putlttent w()11 Ittust pe designed Is denved ()ccordlng to BA 42/96:

Movelttent ()t tOf of w()l/, d = 0.00301tt

Aputlttent Iteigltt, H = r. 81tt

P()sslVe fressure cOefficient, ~ = 5 for ql = 350 ()nd 100 fo!W()rd Inc/in()tion K* = (d/o. 05H)o.4 K,

= 0.143x.K,

= 0.71

But BA 42/96 sfec!f!es a Ittlnilttultt v()lue fortfte fressure cOe(ficlent.· Ittlnilttultt K* = K /3



tor tlterltt()1 CX(J()nsion lo()d coltt/:1!n()tlon8, tlte sol! frcssure di()gr()1tt given In BA 42/96 will pe user/, wltlt K* = 1. 67 for tlte tOf It()/( of tlte w()l/, ()nd uniforltt fressure over tlte pottOItt It()/(. Note tlt()t fressure never reduces ()S f()r ()S Ko' tor tlte tI LS IMd coIttPin()tlon8, () f()rtl()1 lo()d f()ctorYfL of 1.5 will pe ()fflier/, ()g()in ()S sfeci(ied in BA 42/96,






2 / ~Id
K/3 W2 / I
d H I
1 W2 I
K* =0.7 ~I 0.010





d/H= 0.0002

Relationship between K*, retained height (H), and displacement a/the abutment (d).

Based on the diagram in the CBDG report on Integral Bridges'!".

Creep restraint moment

The permanent moment at midspan is due to prestress, dead load and superimposed dead load. The total effect of these components is calculated opposite to be a hogging moment ofO.19MNm on the width of one TY5 beam. In order to find the moment on the composite section, the eccentricity of the prestress has to be recalculated for the composite centroid. For prestress design the eccentricity of the prestress is measured from the centroid of the precast beam alone.

As explained in Section 2, the creep restraint moment can be approximated to 75% of the overall permanent moment in the deck, which itself can be approximated to a uniform moment equal to the midspan moment. In this way, the creep restraint moment can be estimated very simply yet with reasonable accuracy.



(ii) TltermtJl cOl1trtJctiol1

Tlte mtJgl1ltude of tlte tltermtJl contrtJction is tlte stJme tJs thtJt of tltermtJl exptJnsion. Titus tltemttJl cOl1tractiol1 tJIso cesses a mtJX/mum of 3mm movemel1t from tlte metJl1 tosition tJt tlte tot of etJclt tJPutmel1t. ThermtJI cOl1tractiol1 is tJggumed to ctJuse tlte soil treggure to ftJII to tlte tJct/ve tre88ure, witlt 1(, = 0. 2 r.

$oil treggure ditJgram for tlte tJPlltmel1t wtJI!.·

(iii) Comfoil1tJtiol1 3 deck 10tJds

Tlte 10tJd caee wlticlt gives tlte mtJX/mum U/...$ hogging moments tJt tlte el1ds oftlte sttJn IttJs peel1 selected from the deck tJntJlljsis. Tltis il1volves HA 10tJd witlt the kl1i(e-edge 10tJd tJt midsttJl!.

(iV) Creet re8trtJil1t mofltel1t

The creet restraint fltoll1ent"$ tJt the ends of tlte deck will foe ctJlcultJted 011 the tJggumttion tlttJt tltelj will grtJdutJllIj puild Ut to 75% of the terflttJl1el1t fltofltel1t il1 tlte ded\. Tlte ctJ/cultJtiol1 is PtJsed 011 tlte fltofltel1m tJt lI1id-sttJl!.

Tlte trestregg il1 etJclt petJfIt tJt fltidsttJn is 2. D8MN, tJttlied 0.12 3f1t tJPove tlte sofflt. Tlte eccentrlcitlj frOflt tlte cOflttosite centroid is (0. 675/2) - 0.123 = 0.215m.

Tlte termtJl1el1t fltomel1t tJt fltidsttJlt, for tJ widtlt of 0. 765#!, or one T'15 petJ#!, is:

PermtJl1ettt ltoggil1g fltomel1t = 2. 08MN)( 0. 215f1t (prestre.88, hogging)

- 0.223 MNfIt (DL fltofltent, StJggil1g)

- 0.033 MNm ($lX mofltent, StJggil1g)

= 0.446-0.223-0.033 = 0.190MNfIt

R..estraint fltofltent = 75% x 0. 19DMNfIt = 0. 14MNfIt / 0. 765f1t

= 0.14 MNfIt ter petJfIt

= 0.19MNfIt/fltWkltltofdeck


Temperature differences

The left-hand diagram is taken from Figure 9 ofBD 37/88, which gives diagrams for temperature distribution throught the thickness of the deck for both positive and negative temperature differences. To obtain the right-hand diagram, these are multiplied by the coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete, and the Young's modulus for concrete (here assumed to be a uniform 34000 Nzmnr'), to obtain the stresses that would occur in a fully restrained deck.

For convenient calculation, the stress distribution has been divided into four blocks. The axial and moment components of each block are calculated and added together to give the total axial restraint force, and the total restraint moment.

Negative temperature differences cause a small amount of sagging in the deck, although the effect is very small. Calculations use the same method as for positive temperature difference, and are not presented.

--_ --- -


Positive tellt,ertltllre difference will ctJllse tlte deck to tnf to Itog. Tlte lItolltent retfjlired to restrtJin tlte deck needs to pe ctJlcllltJted. Tlte tellt,ertltllre distnPlltion tltrollglt tlte solid sltJP deck Is ttJken (rOIlt BD 3r/88,

Divide ditlgrtlllt into fOllr /1!ock~ tJnd ctJlcllltJte effects on lilt widtlt Of sltJP:

hi' = 0.,20.2111


Stresses in fIIll'I restrtlinetl deck

o = .t.aT= 34000 x 12xjO-6 T

TeIltj/ertJtllre dlstn'Plltion


A 'I o Acr A'Icr
1 0.15 0,262 1,2 018 o.04r2
2 015 0,288 .2.1 0.315 o.090r
3 0.20 0121 0,6 0.12 00145
4 0.20 .aeri 0.45 0.09 -0.0244
TottJls: 0,r05MN/1It 0. 128MNIIt/1It Tlte tJx/tJI force Of 0. r05 MN / lit is reiieved P'I lengtltening Of tlte deck.

Tlte restrtJlnt lItolltent is 0, 128 MNIIt/1It widtlt Of deck.

Botlt oftltese effects tJre tretJtedln tlte IIttJnner of "fix.etI-endlltolltel!ts~ Tlte force tJndlltolltent tJre flrst/'1 considered ss InterntJ/ effect8 In tlte deck on/If, tJnd then etfjltJ/ tJnd 0,,08Ite forces tJnd lItolltents tJre tJ"lied to tlte collt,lIter lItodei. fintJ/lIf, tlte resllits (rOIlt tltese two sttJges oftlte tJntJI'Isls tJre tJdded.

HfOHfent release = 0.128 MNHf/Hf r-+------_+_. ______". aX/al release = 0. 705 MN/Hf

LotJds to com,lIter lItodd


The soil pressure is treated as an applied force in these load cases, so the horizontal soil springs have been removed from the computer model. Thus the model is supported only by pins at the wall bases. In order to keep this design example simple, results are presented here from a two dimensional portal frame model, which represents 1 m width of deck and abutment.

Elevation of computer model used for this part of the analysis

Three conditions have been analysed to find the maximum moments and shears in the abutment walls. The design of these walls is carried out at ULS, so appropriate partial factors are included in the analysis.

Bending moment diagrams for the three conditions analysed are shown below:

0.51 MNmlm 0.21 MNmlm

1/ \ /
1.47 MNmim
(a) (b) (c) tJ) Tltenl1tJl eXftJl1siol1 tJl1d com/?il1tJtir)11 3 10tJds

LotJd 'YfL 'Yf3
HA 1 . .25 1.1
SDL 1.r5 1.1
Soil 1(* 1.50 1.1
TltermtJI eXftJl1siol1 1.30 1.1
NegtJtive teml'diff 1.00 1.1 PORTAL BRIDGE EXAMPLE 73


__ fttI ~ _

Tltis case gives tlte mtJX/mllmltoggil1g momel1t tJt tltejlll1ctiOI1 of tlte decK tJl1d wtJII. Tltis momel1t giVes tel1siol1 tJt tlte PtJcK oftlte wtJII.

Momel1t tJt tol' of wtJII = 0. 51 MNf11/ f11

p) TltermtJI cOl1tmctiOlf tJl1d mil1imllm 10tJds

LotJd SDL SOil I(d

Tlterf11tJl cOl1tmctiOlf Creel'restmil1t

'YfL 1.00

1.00 1.30 1.00

'Yf3 1.1

1.1 1.1 1.1

Kg = 0.27 Tltese 10tJds give tlte worst $(1ggil1g f11of11el1t tJt tltejlll1ctiol1 of tlte deCK tJl1d wtJII. Tltis momel1t g/ves tel1siOlf tJt tlte (rOlft of tlte wtJII, tJl1d il1 tlte pottom of tlte deck.

MOf11e11t tJt tol' ofwtJll = 0 . .21 MNm/m

c) Tlterf11tJl eXftJl1siol1 tJl1d mil1imllm pn'dge 10tJds
LotJd 'YfL 'Yf3
SDL 1.00 1.1
Soil 1(* 1.50 1.1
TltermtJI ex.ttJI1SicJlf 1.30 1.1
PositiVe teml' diff 1.00 1.1
Creel'restrtJil1t 1.00 1.1 0.13 MMff/m temf

~ ~o.19MNm/mcm~

1(*= 1.67

Tltis gives tlte f11tJX/f11l1m /Jel1dil1g momel1t il1 tlte wtJII, wlticlt ocaos tJt tJPOllt mid-Iteigltt. TItI's pel1dil1g momel1t giVes tel1siOlf il1 tlte (rOlft ftJce of tlte wtJII.

MtJ>( momel1t tJt tJl'l'ro>( mM lteI'gltt = 1. 4r MNm/m

The design of the reinforced concrete wall follows the requirements of BS 5400: Part 4. Indicative calculations only are given here, and a real design will need a more extensive set of calculations. In particular, ULS shear and SLS crack widths should be checked. However, the reinforcement indicated here is sufficient to satisfy these criteria as well as the ultimate moment capacity.

Note that there is overall compression in the wall, due to the dead load of the deck and the self weight of the wall. This fact can be used to reduce the reinforcement requirement slightly.

The reinforcement in the wall must be detailed so that the starter bars coming through the construction joint do not get in the way of the precast beam erection process. The beams on this bridge do not have projecting bars at the ends, so they should be reasonably easy to position on top of the walls:

Construction joint




c=) I



__________ ...J

Position of TY5 beam

Seating length on wall = 400mm Note web hole for transverse steel

T20 @J50

T25@ 150 frontface


T20@ 150




Tlte reinforcement t/eslgn for tlte wtliis follows tlte retlfllrements of 8255400: Ptlrt 4. Design for tlLS foent/lng Is In tlccort/tlnce wit It dtillse 5.3.2.

Tlte crltlctll,olnt for tlte rell1{orcement 111 tlte front of tlte wtlll Is tit tlfoOllt mlt/-Itelgltt: fo = 1.0m

t/ = 1.4m tI"rox.for wtlll tltlckn(!$$ of 1.5m tit mlt/-Itelgltt til = 30N/mm2

z = 1. 25m Inltltll estlmtlte of lever tlrm

R..e1l1{orcement In front ftlce Mil = 1. 4?MNm/m

A$ = MII/(0.8?trz) = 1.4?/(400 X. 1.25)= 0.002940 m2/m = 2940 mm2/m

.. Provitle T25@150 = 32?Omm2/m Infrontftlceofwtlll

For reinforcement In fotlck Of wtll!, moment tit tlte to, Is crltlctli.' fo = 1.0m

t/ = 0. 94m for wdll tltlckness of 1. Om dt to, til = 30N/mm2

z = 0.85m Inltltll estlmtlte of lever drm Mil = 0.51 MNm/m

A$ = MII/(0.8?trz)= 0.51/(400x.0.85)= 0.001500m2/m = 1500mm2/m

.. Provlt/e T20@150 = 2090 mm2/m In fotlckofwtlll

Continuity for both hogging and sagging moments must be provided at the connection between the deck and the wall. This can be achieved without using any reinforcement projecting from the ends of the beams. Hogging moment reinforcement can be placed in the topping, and sagging reinforcement in the infill between the beams.

Details are shown on the sketches below:


Note transverse steel through web holes

3T25 between beams

Part cross-section through end of deck, showing position of continuity reinforcement.

II TD2Db41 0000211 bb9 II


Connection pef;Ween wtJll tJI1d deck

Tltls carser connection I11lfst pe designed for tlLS 1110l11ents of

fiogglng = 0.51 MNI11/111 3tJgging = 0.21 MNI11/111

R...elnforcel11ent in tlte tOf oftlte deck ctJn pe prOlfgltt down to ItJf wltlt tlte PtJck rel!1forcel11ent In tile wtJll to resist tile Itogging 1110111ent. For tile steel lit tlte deck:

p = 1.0111 (ctJlclflt1tlons tJre PtJsed on a 1111 wldtll Of deck tJnd wtJll) d = 0.6111

t/( = 40 N/I11I11.2

Z = 0.55111 (lnitit11 estll11tJte) M/( = 0.51MNI11/111

Ag = M/(/(0.87frz)= 0.51/(400)<.0.55)= 0.002320111.2/111 = 2320111111.2/111

WtJll relnforcel11ent Is tJt 150111111 centres, so frovlde T20@150 (2090 111111.2/111) tJt tile mds of tlte deck lit tJddltlon to l11eslt In tlte tOfflng.

3tJgging relitforcel11ent will pe frovlded hI PtJrsln tile 1!1f!/1 concrete petween tlte T'15 petJl118, to tJvold tlte neceS3ltr Of IttJvlng PtJrs frotrtfrititg frOI11 tlte ends Of tile petJl11s, BetJl11 sftJclng is 0. 765""" so ctJ!clfltJte steel re1flired for etJclt 0. 765111 wltle deck section:

p = 0.765111

d = 0. 45111 deftll Of PtJrs Pelow sllr(tJce Of deck t/( = 40 N / 111111.2

Z = 0.40111

M/( = 0.765111><. 0. 21MNI11/111 = 0.16MNI11

Ag = M/(/(0.8Tfrz)= 0.16/(400)<.0.40)= 0.001000111.2/111 = 1000111111.2/111

:. PrOVide 3 T 25 (14701111ff ) petween etJclt petJlf1.


Until this point in the calculations, the base of the retaining wall has been considered to be pinned. It is now time to confirm that this assumption is justified, by checking the stability of the retaining wall.

A freestanding retaining wall has to be checked for various possible types of failure, including overturning, sliding, bearing capacity, and overall slip circle instability. For this bridge abutment, it is necessary to consider carefully which of these checks are required, and under what loading conditions.


Overturning is impossible in this situation, as the top of the retaining wall is propped by the deck slab. Note however that the propping force will cause extra compression in the deck that should be allowed for in its design.


Sliding of the base is the governing criterion for the design of the wall. Under thermal expansion of the bridge, the soil pressures behind the wall increase. However, the base does not have to be checked for resistance to sliding under these soil pressures, as these pressures only occur as a reaction to the wall moving towards the soil. In contrast, the possibility of sliding occurs when the wall moves away from the soil (for instance under thermal contraction). As for standard retaining walls, the fact that the wall is moving away from the soil allows the use of active soil pressures for the analysis.

Retaining wall sliding stability should be checked in accordance with BS8002(2), to which the clause numbers below and opposite refer.

The main design parameters are:

• Minimum surcharge of 10kN/m2 will be applied at ground level behind the abutment (clause

• Additional unplanned excavation ofO.6m will be assumed in front of the wall (clause

• Drainage will be installed behind the base ofthe wall, so water pressures will not figure in the calculations.

• Sliding is an ultimate limit state failure condition. Deformations in service are limited by using a mobilisation factor, M, of 1.2 (clause 3.2.5).

The forces on the retaining wall are summarised on the diagram opposite. Forces are calculated for the area inside the dotted lines, which go vertically upwards from the front and back of the base.


31itJiug stl1pilitlj Q(retl1ll1lug wl111

R..etl1il1il1g wI111 sttlfoilit'f will pe cltecked il1l1CCordl1l1ce wltlt 733 800.2: J 984.

R..ef'resel1tl1tive tl1l1 cp' :. Deslgl1 MI1 cp' Desigl1 MI1 cp'

= M1135°

= o.rOO/M = 30.3°

= O.rOO

= 0,rOO/1.2 = 0.584

Ka = (J - sll1 cp')/(J + sil1 cp') = 0.33 (cll1l1Se 3,3.3.2)

Kj/ = J/Ka = 3.0

73t1se frictiol1 (cll1l1Se 3.2.6)

Deslgl1 tl1l1 8 = 0. r 5 X desigl1 tl1l1 cp' = O. 438 Desigl1 8 = 23.6°

?emfl1l1el1t weigltt of deck I1ctil1g 011 wl111 Is weigltt Of Ittll( tlte J 2111 Sf'l1l1 of 11 sltlP 0.8111 tltick (1'11c1l1dil1g sllrfl1cil1g)

W = (J2111/2)xO,&tx24kN/1113 = JJ5kN/l11widtlt

J J 5 kN/111 deck weigltt

0,8111 deck. 111c1l1dll1g sllrfl1cil1g


overl111 Iteigltt



0,6111 11l1f'll1l1l1ed ext:l1vl1tiol1 0.4111

JI11 Pl1se


The vertical and horizontal forces on a I m wide section of deck are calculated opposite.

The beneficial effects of soil friction on the back of the abutment have conservatively been ignored.

Passive resistance from the shallow depth of soil in front of the abutment has also been ignored. This again is conservative, although in reality a significant forward movement of the abutment would be required to mobilise this force.

The failure mode envisaged is rotation of the wall about the top, where it is propped by the deck. Moments are therefore taken about the point of rotation.

The resistance moment from base friction is found to be well in excess of the active moment, so the base has adequate sliding resistance.

Bearing pressure

Bearing capacity under the base of the wall needs to be checked. However, as overturning is prevented, a uniform bearing pressure can be assumed, and this check is therefore straightforward.

Overall slip circle failure

Overall slip circle failure could occur in integral bridge abutments, as it can for retaining walls. It is normally only a significant consideration when there is an underlying weaker soil layer, which is not the case in this example. Slip circle failure is not considered further here.

CrJlclllrJte forcC8 Ofl 1111 w/dtlt of wrJI/.'

VertlcrJl forcC8:

v = .2.0111 X 10!(N/1I12

+ 7.8111 X 1..5111 X .20!(N/1I13 + 7.8111 X 1..5111 x.24!(N/flt3 + 11.5!(N/1I1

+ 1.0111 X 4.0flt x.24!(N/1I13 + 1. 0111 X 0. 4f1t X .20!(N/flt3

= 7.54!(N/1I1 totrJI

(sllrcltrJrge) .20!(N/1I1

(sol!) .234!(N/1I1

(wrJI!) .281!(N/1I1

(decl:;) 11.5!(N/1I1

(PrJse) 96!(N/1I1

(SOl! Ofl toe) 8!(N/1I1

Active 1t0nZIJfltrJI forcC8:

t; = 1& Kaylt2 + Kdttlt = 1&x0.33x.20x(8.8)2 + 0.33Xl0X8.8 = .2.56 +.29

= .28.5 !(N/1I1

Assllll1e tltrJt slid/fig frJllnre wOllld pe hi rotrJtlofl rJPOllt tlte tOf oftlte wrJII (wltlclt Is froffed PIf tlte dec~ so trJ!(e fltOll1eflts rJPOllt tlte to,.'

MOll1eflt of rJctlVe forcC8 rJPollt fO/flt of rotrJtlOf!

Ma = .2.56!(N X .21t/3 + .29!(N X 1t/.2 = 1.500+130

= 1630 !(NII1/1I1

MOll1eflt of slldlflg reglgtrJflce

M", = VtrJfl81t = 643!(N/lI1x0.438x8.8111 = .2480 !(NII1/1I1

., R.eglgtrJflce Ig we/I lit excess Of glldlflg force, so degigl1 Ig rJdetfjlrJte.

10trJI vertlcrJl force 011 tlte rJPlltll1e1tt wrJII footlflg, V = 7.54!(N/1I1 V0dtlt of PrJse = 4. 0111

.. 73erJr/flg fressllre = 7.54/4.0 = 189 !(N/1I12

11tlg Ig /ess tltrJl1 tlte rJllowrJf:;fe perJrll1g fressllre Of .2.50 !(N/1I12, rJfld Ig tlterefore grJtlS/rJctorlj.



BS 5400: Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 2: 1978: Specification ofloads

Part 3: 1982: Code of practice for design of steel bridges Part 4: 1990: Code of practice for design of concrete bridges


BS 8002: 1994: Code of practice for earth retaining structures


BS 8004: 1984: Code of practice for foundations


BA 42/96, Design of integral bridges The Stationery Office, 1996.


BD 37/88, Loads for highway bridges The Stationery Office, 1989.


BD 42/94, Design of embedded retaining walls and bridge abutments (unpropped or propped at the top)

The Stationery Office, 1994.

7. HAMBLY, E C and NICHOLSON, B A Prestressed beam integral bridges

PCA, 1991.

8. CLARK, L A and SUGIE, I

Serviceability limit state aspects of continuous bridges using precast concrete beams

PCA, 1997.


Simple bridge design using prestressed beams PCA, 1997.


Bridge temperatures estimated from the shade temperature Department of Transport, TRRL Laboratory Report 696. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome, 1976.


Precast prestressed concrete bridges. 5. Creep and shrinkage studies Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1961.


Concrete bridge design to BS 5400

Construction Press, 1983, with supplement, 1985.


Integral Bridges: Report of a study tour of North America Concrete Bridge Development Group, 1997.

14. BRITISH STEEL Piling Handbook Seventh Edition, 1997.


Steel Bearing Piles Guide

The Steel Construction Institute, 1997.

16. ELSON, W K

Report 103: Design oflaterally-Ioaded piles CIRIA, 1984.

17 . PADFIELD, C J and MAIR, R J

Report 104: Design of retaining walls in stiff clays CIRIA, 1984.


PRESTRESSED CONCRETf: ,\SSO('[ATrON 60 CHARLES STREET. LLlCI:STi:R. In IFB Telephone: III 16 ~_'_1 ('161 I" \ III [(, 25 I 4_'6.~

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful