Bridge Abutment Design

© All Rights Reserved

97 views

Bridge Abutment Design

© All Rights Reserved

- Module 12 Frosch
- Abutment Worked Example
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SI
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SI
- Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 1.7 Full Version, OEE Release)
- types of pile
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SI
- Design of Balanced Cantilever Bridge
- IR Post Tension Works
- JL-11-Fall-9
- PC Wire
- ballotjuneaugp1_4-3
- Price Bid
- Presetrssed Concrete
- Pre-tensioning the Spokes in a Bicycle Wheel – Civil Engineering Material
- s 127 Content
- report on failures of foundations
- PDA-s Manual 20July15
- Prestressed Concrete Unit 1
- Psc

You are on page 1of 109

html

Eurocodes

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures - General Actions

EN 1991-1-5: Actions on Structures - Thermal Actions

EN 1991-1-7: Actions on Structures - Accidental Actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on Structures - Traffic Loads on Bridges

EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures - General Rules

EN 1992-2: Design of Concrete Structures - Bridges

EN 1993-5: Design of Steel Structures - Piling

EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design - General Rules

EN 1998-2: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Bridges

EN 1998-5: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Geotechnical

Aspects

Each document is accompanied by a National Annex

British Standards

BS 5400: Part 2: Specification for Loads

BS 5400: Part 4: Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Bridges

BS 8002: Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures

BS 8006: Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills

BS 8500: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1

BS 8666: Specification for scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of

steel reinforcement for concrete

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

BD30: Backfilled Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments

BD37: Loads for Highway Bridges

BA41: The Design and Appearance of Bridges

BA42: The Design of Integral Bridges

BD42: Design of Embedded Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments

BD57 and BA57: Design for Durability

BD70: Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills for Retaining Walls and

Bridge Abutments

Eurocodes

EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures - General Actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on Structures - Traffic Loads on Bridges

EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design - General Rules

EN 1997-2: Geotechnical Design - Ground Investigation and Testing

Each document is accompanied by a National Annex

British Standards

BS 5400: Part 1: General Statement

BS 5400: Part 2: Specification for Loads

BS 5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigations

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

BA41: The Design and Appearance of Bridges

BA42: The Design of Integral Bridges

BD29: Design Criteria for Footbridges

BD37: Loads for Highway Bridges

BD57 and BA57: Design for Durability

TD27: Cross Sections and Headrooms

TD36: Subways for Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists. Layout and Dimensions.

Preliminary Design

In selecting the correct bridge type it is necessary to find a structure that will perform its

required function and present an acceptable appearance at the least cost.

Decisions taken at preliminary design stage will influence the extent to which the actual

structure approximates to the ideal, but so will decisions taken at detailed design stage.

Consideration of each of the ideal characteristics in turn will give some indication of the

importance of preliminary bridge design.

a. Safety.

The ideal structure must not collapse in use. It must be capable of carrying the loading

required of it with the appropriate factor of safety. This is more significant at detailed

design stage as generally any sort of preliminary design can be made safe.

b. Serviceability.

The ideal structure must not suffer from local deterioration/failure, from excessive

deflection or vibration, and it must not interfere with sight lines on roads above or

below it. Detailed design cannot correct faults induced by bad preliminary design.

c. Economy.

The structure must make minimal demands on labour and capital; it must cost as little

as possible to build and maintain. At preliminary design stage it means choosing the

right types of material for the major elements of the structure, and arranging these in

the right form.

d. Appearance.

The structure must be pleasing to look at. Decisions about form and materials are

made at preliminary design stage; the sizes of individual members are finalised at

detailed design stage. The preliminary design usually settles the appearance of the

bridge.

Constraints

The construction depth available should be evaluated. The economic implications of raising

or lowering any approach embankments should then be considered. By lowering the

embankments the cost of the earthworks may be reduced, but the resulting reduction in the

construction depth may cause the deck to be more expensive.

Headroom requirements have to be maintained below the deck; the minimum standards for

UK Highway bridges are given in TD 27 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The

Eurocode Standard (EN 1991-1-7 clause 4.3.2(1) quotes clearances from roadway surfacing

to the underside of the deck to avoid impact damage.

If the bridge is to cross a road that is on a curve, then the width of the opening may have to be

increased to provide an adequate site line for vehicles on the curved road.

It is important to determine the condition of the bridge site by carrying out a comprehensive

site investigation. EN 1997-2: 'Ground investigation and testing' covers the requirements for

the Soil Survey. Other topics which need to be considered are:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

The following table is intended to be a rough guide to the useful span ranges of various types

of deck.

Span

Deck Type

Up to 20m

Insitu reinforced concrete.

Insitu prestressed post-tensioned concrete.

Prestressed pre-tensioned inverted T beams with insitu fill.

16m to 30m

Insitu prestressed post-tensioned concrete voided slab.

Prestressed pre-tensioned Y and U beams with insitu slab.

Prestressed pre-tensioned box beams with insitu topping.

Prestressed post-tensioned beams with insitu slab.

Steel beams with insitu slab.

30m to 40m

Prestressed pre-tensioned box beams with insitu topping.

Prestressed post-tensioned beams with insitu slab.

Steel beams with insitu slab.

30m to 300m

Box girder bridges - As the span increases the construction tends to go from 'all concrete' to

'steel box / concrete deck' to 'all steel'.

Truss bridges - for spans up to 50m they are generally less economic than plate girders.

150m to 1000m

Cable stayed bridges.

350m to ?

Suspension bridges.

1. A span to depth ratio of 20 will give a starting point for estimating construction

depths.

2. Continuity over supports

i.

ii.

material used.

iii.

i.

Reduces the need for soffit shuttering or scaffolding; useful when headroom is

restricted or access is difficult.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

Special permission needed to transport units of more than 29m long on the

highway.

4. Length of structure

i.

The shortest structure is not always the cheapest. By increasing the length of

the structure the embankment, retaining wall and abutment costs may be

reduced, but the deck costs will increase.

5. Substructure

i.

abutments and foundations. Alternative designs for piled foundations should

be investigated; piling can increase the cost of a structure by up to 20%.

The preliminary design process will produce several apparently viable schemes. The

procedure from this point is to:

i.

ii.

Apply unit price rates - they need not be up to date but should reflect any differential

variations.

iii.

The final selection will be based on cost and aesthetics. This method of costing assumes that

the scheme with the minimum volume will be the cheapest, and will be true if the structure is

not particularly unusual. Eurocodes

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures - General Actions

EN 1991-1-4: Actions on Structures - Wind Actions

EN 1991-1-5: Actions on Structures - Thermal Actions

EN 1991-1-7: Actions on Structures - Accidental Actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on Structures - Traffic Loads on Bridges

EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures - General Rules

Each document is accompanied by a National Annex

British Standards

BS 4449: Steel for Reinforcement of Concrete

BS 5400: Part 2: Specification for Loads

BS 5400: Part 4: Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Bridges

BS 8500: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1

BS 8666: Specification for scheduling, dimensioning, bending and

cutting of steel reinforcement for concrete

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

BA24: Early Thermal Cracking of Concrete

BD24: Design of Concrete Bridges

BD28: Early Thermal Cracking of Concrete

BD37: Loads for Highway Bridges

BD43: Criteria and Materials for the Impregnation of Concrete

Highway Structures

BD57 and BA57: Design for Durability

Technical Papers

CIRIA Report C660 - Early-age thermal crack control in concrete.

The three most common types of reinforced concrete bridge decks are :

Solid Slab

Voided Slab

Solid slab bridge decks are most useful for small, single or multi-span bridges and are easily

adaptable for high skew.

Voided slab and beam and slab bridges are used for larger, single or multi-span bridges. In

circular voided decks the ratio of [depth of void] / [depth of slab] should be less than 0.79;

and the maximum area of void should be less than 49% of the deck sectional area.

Analysis of Deck

For decks with skew less than 25 a simple unit strip method of analysis is generally

satisfactory. For skews greater than 25 then a grillage or finite element method of analysis

will be required. Skew decks develop twisting moments in the slab which become more

significant with higher skew angles. Computer analysis will produce values for Mx, My and

Mxy where Mxy represents the twisting moment in the slab. Due to the influence of this

twisting moment, the most economical way of reinforcing the slab would be to place the

reinforcing steel in the direction of the principal moments. However these directions vary

over the slab and two directions have to be chosen in which the reinforcing bars should lie.

Wood and Armer have developed equations for the moment of resistance to be provided in

two predetermined directions in order to resist the applied moments Mx, My and Mxy.

Extensive tests on various steel arrangements have shown the best positions as follows

There are two types of deck using prestressed concrete :

i.

ii.

Post-tensioned concrete.

The term pre-tensioning is used to describe a method of prestressing in which the tendons are

tensioned before the concrete is placed, and the prestress is transferred to the concrete when a

Post-tensioning is a method of prestressing in which the tendon is tensioned after the concrete

has reached a suitable strength. The tendons are anchored against the hardened concrete

immediately after prestressing.

There are three concepts involved in the design of prestressed concrete :

i.

By applying this concept concrete may be regarded as an elastic material, and may be

treated as such for design at normal working loads. From this concept the criterion of

no tensile stresses in the concrete was evolved.

In an economically designed simply supported beam, at the critical section, the

bottom fibre stress under dead load and prestress should ideally be the maximum

allowable stress; and under dead load, live load and prestress the stress should be the

minimum allowable stress.

Therefore under dead load and prestress, as the dead load moment reduces towards

the support, then the prestress moment will have to reduce accordingly to avoid

exceeding the permissible stresses. In post-tensioned structures this may be achieved

by curving the tendons, or in pre-tensioned structures some of the prestressing strands

may be deflected or de-bonded near the support.

ii.

the steel taking tension and concrete compression so that the two materials form a

resisting couple against the external moment. (Analogous to reinforced concrete

concepts).

This concept is utilized to determine the ultimate strength of prestressed beams.

iii.

It is possible to arrange the tendons to produce an upward load which balances the

downward load due to say, dead load, in which case the concrete would be in uniform

compression.

Types of beams in common use are inverted T-beams, M-beams and Y beams. Inverted Tbeams are generally used for spans between 7 and 16 metres and the voids between the beams

are filled with insitu concrete thus forming a solid deck. M-Beams are used for spans between

14 and 30 metres and have a thin slab cast insitu spanning between the top flanges with the

aim of forming a voided slab type deck. The top face of the bottom flange of M-Beams

cannot be readily inspected, also the limited access makes bearing replacement difficult. As a

consequence of these restrictions the Y-beam was introduced in 1990 to replace the M-beam.

This lead to the production of an SY-beam which is used for spans between 32 and 40 metres.

The U-beam is used for spans between 14 and 34 metres and is usually chosen where

torsional strength is required.

Post-tensioned bridge decks are generally composed of insitu concrete in which ducts have

been cast in the required positions.

When the concrete has acquired sufficient strength, the tendons are threaded through the

ducts and tensioned by hydraulic jacks acting against the ends of the member. The ends of the

tendons are then anchored.

Tendons are then bonded to the concrete by injecting grout into the ducts after the stressing

has been completed.

It is possible to use pre-cast concrete units which are post-tensioned together on site to form

the bridge deck.

Generally it is more economical to use post-tensioned construction for continuous structures

rather than insitu reinforced concrete at spans greater than 20 metres. For simply supported

spans it may b e economic to use a post-tensioned deck at spans greater than 20 metres.

Composite Decks

Composite Construction in bridge decks usually refers to the interaction between insitu

reinforced concrete and structural steel.

Three main economic advantages of composite construction are :

i.

For a given span and loading system a smaller depth of beam can be used than for a

concrete beam solution, which leads to economies in the approach embankments.

ii.

The cross-sectional area of the steel top flange can be reduced because the concrete

can be considered as part of it.

iii.

Transverse stiffening for the top compression flange of the steel beam can be reduced

because the restraint against buckling is provided by the concrete deck.

Construction Methods

It is possible to influence the load carried by a composite deck section in a number of ways

during the erection of a bridge.

By propping the steel beams while the deck slab is cast and until it has gained strength, then

the composite section can be considered to take the whole of the dead load. This method

appears attractive but is seldom used since propping can be difficult and usually costly.

With continuous spans the concrete slab will crack in the hogging regions and only the steel

reinforcement will be effective in the flexural resistance, unless the concrete is prestressed.

Generally the concrete deck is 220mm to 250mm thick with beams or plate girders between

2.5m and 3.5m spacing and depths between span/20 and span/30.

Composite action is developed by the transfer of horizontal shear forces between the concrete

deck and steel via shear studs which are welded to the steel girder. Typical types of

connectors are shown below, the stud connector being the most commonly used.

Stud Connector

Bar Connector

Channel Connector

Trusses are generally used for bridge spans between 30m and 150m where the construction

depth (deck soffit to road level) is limited. The small construction depth reduces the length

and height of the approach embankments that would be required for other deck forms. This

can have a significant effect on the overall cost of the structure, particularly where the

approach gradients cannot be steep as for railway bridges.

High fabrication and maintenance costs has made the truss type deck less popular in the UK;

labour costs being relatively high compared to material costs. Where material costs are

relatively high then the truss is still an economical solution. The form of construction also

allows the bridge to be fabricated in small sections off site which also makes transportation

easier, particularly in remote areas.

Choice of Truss

The underslung truss is the most economical as the deck provides support for the live load

and also braces the compression chord. There is however the problem of the headroom

clearance required under the deck which generally renders this truss only suitable for

unnavigable rivers or over flood planes.

Where underslung trusses are not possible, and the span is short, it may be economical to use

a half-through truss. Restraint to the compression flange is achieved by U frame action.

When the span is large, and the underslung truss cannot be used, then the through girder

provides the most economic solution. Restraint to the compression flange is provided by

bracing between the two top chords; this is more efficient than U frame support. The bracing

therefore has to be above the headroom requirement for traffic on the deck.

Cable Stayed Decks

Cable stayed bridges are generally used for bridge spans between 150m and 1000m. They are

often chosen for their aesthetics, but are generally economical for spans in excess of 250m.

Cable stayed girders were developed in Germany during the reconstruction period after the

last war and attributed largely to the works of Fritz Leonhardt. Straight cables are connected

directly to the deck and induce significant axial forces into the deck. The structure is

consequently self anchoring and depends less on the foundation conditions than the

suspension bridge.

The cables and the deck are erected at the same time which speeds up the construction time

and reduces the amount of temporary works required. The cable lengths are adjusted during

construction to counteract the dead load deflections of the deck due to extension in the cable.

Most early cable-stayed bridges have an orthotropic deck, mainly because the long span

bridges were usually built by steel companies. It was considered economical to use composite

slabs for spans up to about 250m. Developments in concrete technology have now allowed

higher grade strenghs to be used. This development, combined with the increased cost of

steel, has seen longer composite deck spans being used economically. Spans in excess of

600m are now being built using a steel-concrete composite box girder constuction.

Either box girders or plate girders (for the shorter spans) can be used in the deck, however if

a single plane of cables is used then it is essential to use the box girder construction to

achieve torsional stability.

Suspension Bridges

Bridge Name (Country)

Main Span

Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (Japan)

1990m

Xihoumen Bridge (China)

1650m

Great Belt Bridge (Denmark)

1624m

Yi Sun-sin Bridge (South Korea)

1545m

Runyang Bridge (China)

1490m

1418m

Humber Bridge (UK)

1410m

Jiangyin Suspension Bridge (China)

1385m

Tsing Ma (Hong Kong)

1377m

Hardanger Bridge (Norway)

1310m

Verrazano Narrows (USA)

1298m

Golden Gate (USA)

1280m

Yangluo Bridge (China)

1280m

Hga Kusten Bridge (Sweden)

1210m

Aizhai Bridge (China)

1176m

Mackinac Bridge (USA)

1158m

Huangpu Bridge (China)

1108m

Minami Bisan-Seto Bridge (Japan)

1100m

Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (Turkey)

1090m

Balinghe Bridge (China)

1088m

Taizhou Bridge (China)

1080m

Maanshan Bridge (China)

1158m

Bosporus Bridge(Turkey)

1074m

George Washington Bridge(USA)

1067m

Third Kurushima-Kaiky Bridge (Japan)

1030m

Second Kurushima-Kaiky Bridge (Japan)

1020m

25 de Abril Bridge [formerly Salazar Bridge] (Portugal)

1013m

Forth Road Bridge (UK)

1006m

Kita Bisan-Seto Bridge (Japan)

990m

Severn Bridge (UK)

988m

960m

Tacoma Narrows (USA)

853m

A number of early suspension bridges were designed without the appreciation of wind effects.

Large deflections were developed in the flexible decks and wind loading created unstable

oscillations. The problem was largely solved by using inclined hangers.

The suspension bridge is essentially a catenary cable prestressed by dead weight. The cables

are guided over the support towers to ground anchors. The stiffened deck is supported mainly

by vertical or inclined hangers.

Eurocodes

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures - General Actions

EN 1991-1-4: Actions on Structures - Wind Actions

EN 1991-1-5: Actions on Structures - Thermal Actions

EN 1991-1-7: Actions on Structures - Accidental Actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on Structures - Traffic Loads on Bridges

EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures - General Rules

EN 1992-2: Design of Concrete Structures - Bridges

EN 1993-5: Design of Steel Structures - Piling

EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design - General Rules

EN 1997-2: Geotechnical Design - Ground Investigation

EN 1998-2: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Bridges

EN 1998-5: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Geotechnical

Aspects

Each document is accompanied by a National Annex

British Standards

BS 5400: Part 2: Specification for Loads

BS 5400: Part 3: Code of Practice for the Design of Steel Bridges

BS 5400: Part 4: Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Bridges

BS 8500: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1

BS 8002: Earth Retaining Structures

BS 8004: Foundations

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

BD10: Design of Highway Structures in Areas of Mining Subsidence

BA25: Piled Foundations

BD32: Piled Foundations

BD42: Design of Embedded Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments

BD74: Foundations

Technical Papers

CIRIA Report C660 - Early-age thermal crack control in concrete.

Choice of Foundation

Foundation types depend primarily on the depth and safe bearing pressures of the bearing

stratum, also restrictions placed on differential settlement due to the type of bridge deck.

Generally in the case of simply supported bridge decks differential settlements of about 20 to

25 mm can be tolerated, whereas multi-span continuous decks 10 mm is usually considered

as a maximum.

Bridge foundations generally fall into two categories:

i.

Strip footings, one for each pier and abutment. However, it is sometimes convenient

to split the deck into two halves longitudinally along the centre line, this is then

continued to the footing.

ii.

Piled foundations.

It is possible to have a combination of both (i.e. piers being piled with abutments on strip

footings).

Design Considerations

The design of foundations comprise of the following stages :

i.

From the site investigation report decide upon which stratum to impose the structure

load and its safe bearing pressure.

ii.

Select the type of foundation, possibly comparing the suitability of several types.

iii.

Design the foundation to transfer and distribute the loads from the structure to the

ground. Ensure that the factor of safety against shear failure in the soil is not reached

and settlement is within the allowable limits.

Strip Footings

The overall size of strip footings is determined by considering the effects of vertical and

rotational loads. The combination of these two must neither exceed the safe bearing capacity

of the stratum or produce uplift. The thickness of the footings is generally about 0.8 to 1.0 m

but must be capable of withstanding moments and shears produced by piers or abutments.

The critical shearing stress may be assumed to occur on a plane at a distance equal to the

effective depth of the base from the face of the column.

Cover to reinforcement should never be less than values given in BS 5400: Part 4: Table 13,

and crack control calculation must be carried out to ensure the crack width is less than

0.25mm (Table 1). Cover to reinforcement will need to be increased to comply with BS 8500

requirements.

Piled Foundations

The type of piles generally used for bridge foundations are :

a. Driven Piles; preformed piles of concrete or steel driven by blows of a power hammer

or jacked into the ground.

b. Preformed Driven Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by driving a hollow steel tube with a

closed end and filling the tube with concrete.

c. Driven Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by driving a hollow steel tube with a closed end and

filling the tube with concrete, simultaneously withdrawing the tube.

d. Bored and Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by boring a hole and filling it with concrete.

a. to c. are known as displacement piles, and the problems of calculating the load carrying

capacity and settlement require a different approach to that for bored piles.

Driven type piles can, depending on the strata, be either end bearing or friction piles;

sometimes a combination of both.

Bored piles are generally end bearing and are often of large diameter. To increase their

bearing capacity the bottom can be under-reamed to produce a greater bearing area. However,

additional safety precautions are required with larger diameter piles.

A specialist form of pile consisting of stone aggregate consolidated by water or air using the

'Vibroflotation' technique is suitable in some granular soils.

Choice of pile type depends largely on the strata which they pass through, none of them

however give the most economic and satisfactory solution under all conditions.

The art of selecting the right sort of pile lies in rejecting all those types which are obviously

unsuited to the particular set of circumstances and then choosing from those which remain,

the one which produces the most economical solution.

Concurrently with the choice of pile type must go the choice of the strata which will carry the

main loads from the structure, because this very often influences the choice. In most all cases

the rejection of conventional pad or strip foundations arises because the computed settlement

is more than the structure can safely withstand and hence the main purpose of the piled

foundation will be to reduce this settlement. It follows, therefore, that if more compressible

strata exists within reasonable distance of the surface, it is very desirable that a high

proportion of the foundation load should be carried by this more stable strata; the ideal

solution is where piles support the load wholly in end bearing on hard rock where the

settlement will be negligible. It follows that piles wholly embedded in the same soil that

would under-lie a conventional foundation has very little effect in reducing settlement. With

soft normally consolidated alluvial clays, the remoulding effect of driven piles may well

increase the settlement of the soil under its own dead weight and thus increase the settlement

of the foundation itself.

All foundations must satisfy two criteria, no shear failure in the soil and no excessive

settlement; piled foundations also have to meet this criteria. There are well established

methods for ensuring that the first criteria is met, but the second presents more of a problem.

The working load of an individual pile is based on providing an adequate factor of safety

against the soil under the toe failing in shear and the adhesion between the shaft and the soil

surrounding it passing its ultimate value and the whole pile sinking further into the ground.

There are basically four methods for assessing this effect :

i.

Through soil parameters i.e. summing shaft friction and bearing capacity. The

ultimate bearing capacity is usually modified to compensate for the driving effect of

the pile.

ii.

iii.

By means of dynamic formulae i.e. Hiley formulae which equates the energy required

to drive the pile with its ultimate bearing capacity.

iv.

Eurocodes

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures - General Actions

EN 1991-1-7: Actions on Structures - Accidental Actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on Structures - Traffic Loads on Bridges

EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures - General Rules

EN 1992-2: Design of Concrete Structures - Bridges

EN 1993-5: Design of Steel Structures - Piling

EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design - General Rules

EN 1998-2: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Bridges

EN 1998-5: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Geotechnical

Aspects

Each document is accompanied by a National Annex

British Standards

BS 5400: Part 2: Specification for Loads

BS 5400: Part 4: Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Bridges

BS 8002: Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures

BS 8006: Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills

BS 8500: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1

BS 8666: Specification for scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

BD30: Backfilled Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments

BD37: Loads for Highway Bridges

BA41: The Design and Appearance of Bridges

BD42: Design of Embedded Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments

BD57 and BA57: Design for Durability

BD68: Crib Retaining Walls

BD70: Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills for Retaining Walls

and Bridge Abutments

Technical Papers

CIRIA Report C660 - Early-age thermal crack control in concrete.

Choice of Wing Wall

Wing walls are essentially retaining walls adjacent to the abutment. The walls can be

independent or integral with the abutment wall.

Providing the bridge skew angle is small (less than 20), and the cutting/embankment slopes

are reasonably steep (about 1 in 2), then the wing wall cantilevering from the abutment wall

is likely to give the most economical solution.

Splayed wing walls can provide even more of an economy in material costs but the detailing

and fixing of the steel reinforcement is more complicated than the conventional wall.

Design Considerations

Loads effects to be considered on the rear of the wall are:

i.

ii.

iii.

The stability of the wall is generally designed to resist 'active' earth pressures (Ka); whilst the

structural elements are designed to resist 'at rest' earth pressures (Ko). The concept is that 'at

rest' pressures are developed initially and the structural elements should be designed to

accommodate these loads without failure. The loads will however reduce to 'active' pressure

when the wall moves, either by rotating or sliding. Consequently the wall will stabilise if it

moves under 'at rest' pressures providing it is designed to resist 'active' earth pressures.

X = slope to road under bridge

Y = slope from road over bridge

L = length of sloping wall

K = length of horizontal wall

V = verge width to end of wall

Z1 = level at bottom of embankment

Z2 = level at back of verge on road over bridge

Zw = ground level at end of wall

= angle of wall to road under bridge

= skew angle ( -ve if < 90)

Zw = Z1 + 1/x [(L+K)Sin]

Zw = Z2 - [(L+K) Cos + (L+K) SinTan - V/Cos ] Cos / Y

L + K = [ X Y (Z2 - Z1) + V X ] / [ X Cos ( - ) + Y Sin] ..................eqn.(1)

For minimum length of wall dL/d = 0

ie. Tan = Tan + Y / X Cos

For known lengths of wall (L+K) two values of can be obtained from eqn.(1).

From eqn.(1) -(A+B)Tan2(/2) + 2(C+Y)Tan(/2) + (B-A) = 0

Where A = [XY(Z2 - Z1) + VX] / [L + K] , B = X Cos , and C = X Sin

Example

Wall

Z1

Z2

V

X

Y

Level

at

top of

wall

(L+K)

Max

&

Min

Zw

Kmax

N/E

56.6

63.6

2.2

2.0

2.0

10.5

63.0

11.0

68.1

to

32.4

32.5

59.6

4.1

S/E

56.9

64.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

-27.0

63.6

15.9

31.5

31.5

61.1

10.8

S/W

57.2

64.4

0.8

2.6

2.0

27.7

63.8

12.2

89.3

to

18.5

30.0

59.6

3.8

Minimum Lengths :N/E Wall : L+K = 10.437 @ = 50.25

S/E Wall : L+K = 15.889 @ = 31.5

S/W Wall : L+K = 9.996 @ = 54.37

Choice of Parapet

edge of a bridge or on a retaining wall or similar structure where there is a vertical drop, and

which may contain additional protection and restraint for pedestrians and other road users.

Manufacturers have developed and tested parapets to meet the containment standards

specified in the codes. Much of the earlier testing work was involved with achieving a

parapet which would absorb the impact load and not deflect the vehicle back into the line of

adjacent traffic. The weight of vehicle, speed of impact and angle of impact influence the

behaviour of the parapet. Consequently a level of containment has been adopted to minimise

the risk to traffic using the bridge (above and below the deck).

BS EN 1317-2 1998 specifies criteria for vehicle impact tests on parapets for various

containment levels. The containment levels adopted by TD 19/06 (Design Manual for Roads

and Bridges Volume 2, Section 2, Part 8) require testing to be carried out for various vehicles

impacting the parapet at an angle of 20o.

The vehicle impact test criteria for various containment levels as follows :

Test Vehicle

Impact Speed

N1

Normal Containment (Formerly P2{80})

1.5t car

80 km/h

N2

Normal Containment Level (Formerly P1, P2{113} & P5)

1.5t car

110 km/h

H2

Higher Containment Level

13t bus

70 km/h

H4a

Very High Containment Level (Formerly P6)

30t Rigid HGV

65 km/h

Metal Parapets are designed and tested by manufactures who apply to the Highways Agency

to be included on an Approved List. A copy of the "Highways Agency's Approved Road

Restraint System List" can be obtained from their website

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/tech_info/en_1317_compliance.htm

TD19/06 is the current design standard which requires carrying out a risk assessment to

identify the hazards and minimise the risks to the road users.

The risk assessment is documented by using an Excel spreadsheet, a copy of which can be

obtained from the Highways Agency's website

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/tech_info/rrrap.htm

A user-guide is also available on the same web-page.

TD 19/06 also directs the designer to use BS 6779 and BS 7818 for the design of specific

elements of parapets.

BS 6779: 1998 - Highway Parapets for Bridges and Other Structures.

Part 1: Metal Parapets for the provision of infill to parapets (see TD 19/06 clause 4.29, 4.39,

4.40)

Part 2: Concrete Parapets for the design of reinforced concrete parapets with some

amendments (see TD 19/06 clauses 4.56 to 4.60)

Part 4: Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Parapets to assess the containment capacity of

existing masonry parapets (see TD 19/06 clause 4.62)

BS 7818: 1995: Pedestrian Metal Parapets

This Standard is required for the manufacture and installation of pedestrian restraint systems

until such times as the drafting of prEN 1317-6 is completed (see TD 19/06 clause 9.3).

Design Considerations

namely:

The height;

The length;

Concrete parapets are ideal for very high containment parapets due to their significant mass.

Steel parapets are generally the cheapest solution for the normal containment. This is

significant if the site is prone to accidents and parapet maintenance is likely to be regular. The

steelwork does however require painting and is usually pretreated with hot-dip galvanising.

Aluminium parapets do not require surface protection and maintenance costs will be reduced

if the parapet does not require replacing through damage. The initial cost is however high and

special attention to fixing bolts is required to prevent the parapets from being stolen for their

high scrap value. Aluminium also provides a significant weight saving over the steel parapet.

This is sometimes important for parapets on moving bridges.

Choice of Pier

Wherever possible slender piers should be used so that there is sufficient flexibility to allow

temperature, shrinkage and creep effects to be transmitted to the abutments without the need

for bearings at the piers, or intermediate joints in the deck.

A slender bridge deck will usually look best when supported by slender piers without the

need for a downstand crosshead beam. It is the proportions and form of the bridge as a whole

which are vitally important rather than the size of an individual element viewed in isolation.

Design Considerations

Loads transmitted by the bridge deck onto the pier are :

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

The overall configuration of the bridge will determine the combination of loads and

movements that have to be designed for. For example if the pier has a bearing at its top,

corresponding to a structural pin joint, then the horizontal movements will impose moments

at the base, their magnitude will depend on the pier flexibility.

Sometimes special requirements are imposed by rail or river authorities if piers are positioned

within their jurisdiction. In the case of river authorities a 'cut water' may be required to assist

the river flow, or independent fenders to protect the pier from impact from boats or floating

debris. A similar arrangement is often required by the rail authorities to prevent minor

derailments striking the pier. Whereas the pier has to be designed to resist major derailments.

Also if the pier should be completely demolished by a train derailment then the deck should

not collapse.

Choice of Deck Joint

Current practice is to make decks integral with the abutments. The objective is to avoid the

use of joints over abutments and piers. Expansion joints are prone to leak and allow the

ingress of de-icing salts into the bridge deck and substructure. In general all bridges are made

continuous over intermediate supports and decks under 60 metres long with skews not

exceeding 30 are made integral with their abutments.

Where it is intended not to use road salts, or the deck and substructure have been designed to

incorporate deck joints then the following guidance is given in BD 33/94 for the range of

movements that can be accommodated by the various joint types:

JOINT TYPE

TOTAL ACCEPTABLE

LONGITUDINAL

MOVEMENT

Min

(mm)

Max

(mm)

MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE

VERTICAL MOVEMENT

BETWEEN TWO SIDES

OF JOINT (mm)

1. Buried joint under

continuous surfacing.

5

20

1.3

2. Asphaltic Plug joint.

5

40

3

3. Nosing joint with

poured sealant.

5

12

3

4. Nosing with preformed

compression seal.

5

40

3

5. Reinforced Elastomeric.

5

*

3

6. Elastomeric in metal

runners.

5

*

3

7. Cantilever comb or

tooth joint.

25

*

3

The minimum of the range is given to indicate when the type of joint may not be economical.

* Maximum value varies according to manufacturer or type.

Thermal Movements

BS 5400 Part 2 Chapter 5.4 specifies maximum and minimum effective bridge temperatures

which have to be accommodated in the bridge structure.

The width of joint between the end of the deck and the abutment is set during construction of

the bridge; usually when the concrete curtain wall is cast. The maximum expansion of the

deck is therefore determined from the minimum effective temperature at which the curtain

wall is allowed to to be cast; usually 2C. Hence if a maximum effective temperature of 40C

is calculated from BS 5400 Part 2 then a joint width will have to be provided at the end of the

deck to allow for an expansion caused by a temperature increase of (40-2)=38C.

The maximum contraction of the deck is determined in a similar manner, but using a nominal

effective temperature at which the joint is set.

Having determined the range of movement at the joint then the type of joint can be specified.

The nominal effective temperature used in the calculations will also have to be specified to

enable the correct adjustments to be made on site when the joints are set.

http://www.bridgedesign.org.uk/index.html

Choice of Abutment

Current practice is to make decks integral with the abutments. The objective is to avoid the

use of joints over abutments and piers. Expansion joints are prone to leak and allow the

ingress of de-icing salts into the bridge deck and substructure. In general all bridges are made

continuous over intermediate supports, and decks under 60 metres long with skews not

exceeding 30 are made integral with their abutments.

Full height integral abutments (DfT BA 42/96 call Frame Abutments) are generally used for

the shorter spans (< about 20m).

Integral abutments with piled foundations (DfT BA 42/96 call Embedded Abutments) usually

incorporate steel H piles in a single row; the H piles are orientated so that bending occurs

about their weaker axis. These abutments are suitable for the larger span decks.

Integral abutments with spread footings (DfT BA 42/96 call Bank Pad Abutments) should

only be used where settlement due to consolidation of founding strata is minimal.

Where decks exceed 60 metres long or have skews exceeding 30 then movement joints and

bearings usually need to be provided.

Geometric Considerations

Usually the narrow bridge is cheaper in the open abutment form and the wide bridge is

cheaper in the solid abutment form. The exact transition point between the two types depends

very much on the geometry and the site of the particular bridge. In most cases the open

abutment solution has a better appearance and is less intrusive on the general flow of the

ground contours and for these reasons is to be preferred. It is the cost of the wing walls when

related to the deck costs which swings the balance of cost in favour of the solid abutment

solution for wider bridges. However the wider bridges with solid abutments produce a

tunnelling effect and costs have to be considered in conjunction with the proper functioning

of the structure where fast traffic is passing beneath. Solid abutments for narrow bridges

should only be adopted where the open abutment solution is not possible. In the case of wide

bridges the open abutment solution is to be preferred, but there are many cases where

economy must be the overriding consideration.

Design Considerations

Loads transmitted by the bridge deck onto the abutment are :

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

These loads are carried by the bearings which are seated on the abutment bearing platform.

The horizontal loads may be reduced by depending on the coefficient of friction of the

bearings at the movement joint in the structure.

However, the full braking effect is to be taken, in either direction, on top of the abutment at

carriageway level.

In addition to the structure loads, horizontal pressures exerted by the fill material against the

abutment walls is to be considered. Also a vertical loading from the weight of the fill acts on

the footing.

Vehicle loads at the rear of the abutments are considered by applying a surcharge load on the

rear of the wall.

For certain short single span structures it is possible to use the bridge deck to prop the two

abutments apart. This entails the abutment wall being designed as a propped cantilever.

Index

1.Earth pressures

2.Abutment Construction

3.Loading

4.Stability

5.Design Example to BD 30 or EN 1997-1

1.Earth Pressures

Active earth pressures (Ka h) are considered to ensure that the abutment is stable.

At rest earth pressures (Ko h) are considered to ensure that the structural elements are

adequate.

Passive earth pressures (Kp h) are only considered for integral abutments or where

shear keys are provided.

At rest pressures are initially developed on the back of the abutment wall during construction

and whilst the backfill is compacting. Consequently the structural elements have to be

designed to resist the effects of these pressures.

Any movements in the structure caused by the at rest pressure, either through rotation or

deflection will reduce the pressure on the back of the wall; a state of equilibrium is reached

when the pressure reduces to the active earth pressure value. Consequently the stability of the

structure can be checked by using active earth pressures.

Passive pressures are developed when the structure pushes against the soil. Since movements

required to develop passive pressures are considerably greater than that for active pressures,

and the structure is designed to ensure that the foundations do not slide under active

pressures, then it is unlikely that passive pressures will be developed in front of the abutment.

The magnitude of movement required to mobilise passive pressure can be determined from

EN 1997-1:2004 Clause C.3(2) and PD 6694-1:2011 Clause 7.5. There is also the chance that,

at some time in the future, the soil in front of the abutment may be removed temporarily. This

could happen if services, such as drainage pipes, water or gas mains, are installed or repaired

in front of the abutment. Consequently the structure needs to be designed to be stable with no

soil in front of the concrete footings.

If shear keys are required to prevent sliding then the key should be located under the rear half

of the base and a factored value of passive pressure is used.

Integral bridges experience passive pressures on the back of the abutment wall when the deck

expands. The design of integral abutments is covered in BA 42, PD 6694-1 and a number of

publications, such as Integral Abutments for Prestressed Beam Bridges by B A Nicholson,

and Composite Highway Bridge Design by D C Iles give guidance and examples.

2.Abutment Construction

retaining walls with spread footings or piled foundations.

The layout of the abutment will have implications on the design which need to be considered.

The provision of a drainage layer will allow porewater pressures to be ignored (unless there is

a possibility of a large water main bursting). However the drainge layer separates the backfill

soil from the wall so back of wall friction should not be included. Traffic vibration will also

affect any vertical friction effects on the back of the wall.

Foundation level is usually set at least one metre below ground level to avoid deterioration of

the foundation material through frost action. If services, such as gas pipes, water mains,

electricity cables etc., may be installed in front of the abutment wall then the depth to

foundation level may need to be increased to allow the services to be installed above the

concrete footing.

It is usual to provide granular backfill to the back of the wall which limits the material to

Class 6N or 6P as defined in the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works Volume

1 Specification Series 600 Clause 610 and Table 6/1. A typical value for the effective angle of

internal friction (') for Class 6N or 6P material is 35o. This equates to serviceability limit

state values of:

Ka = (1-Sin') / (1+Sin') = 0.27

Ko = (1-Sin') = 0.43

3.Loading

Loading from the deck is applied to the abutment through the bearings. Maximum vertical

bearing loads are obtained from the deck analysis; these loads, together with the type of

restraint required to support the deck, will dictate the type of bearing provided.

Horizontal loads from the deck are produced by wind loading, temperature effects, creep

movements, traction, braking and skidding loads, collision loads when high level of

containment parapets are used, and centrifugal loads if the horizontal radius of curvature of

the carriageway is less than 1000 metres when using BS 5400-2, or 1500 metres when using

EN 1991-2.

Longitudinal loads from temperature effects in the deck will be determined according to the

type of bearing used. Elastomeric bearings are effectively 'glued' in place between the deck

soffit and the abutment bearing plinth so that the bearing has to distort when the deck

expands and contracts. The longitudinal force produced by this distortion is proportional to

the shear stiffness of the bearing and the magnitude of the movement.

Sliding bearings, on the other hand, produce a longitudinal load which is proportional to the

dead(permanent) load reaction and the coefficient of friction between the sliding surfaces.

The cofficient of friction () varies between 0.01 and 0.08 depending on the type of bearing

and bearing stress (see BS 5400 Part 9:1, Tables 2 and 3).

The longitudinal load from the temperature effect will act equally on both abutments. If

sliding bearings are used then the load transmitted is equal to the friction at the bearing under

dead and superimposed dead loads (permanent actions). If elastomeric bearings are used then

the load transmitted is equal to the force required to distort the bearing by the distance the

deck expands or contracts.

The deck is very stiff in the axial direction so horizontal loads will have negligible effect on

the length of the deck. Hence longitudinal loads due to traction, braking and skidding are

assumed to be transmitted to the fixed abutment only. If only elastomeric bearings are used,

i.e. there is no fixed abutment, then the loads due to traction, braking and skidding are shared

between the two abutments.

Transverse loads on the deck will be transmitted to the abutment through the fixed and

sliding-guided bearings only. These loads are unlikely to have an effect on the stability of a

full height abutment, but the bearing plinths need to be designed to resist the loads. The

stability of small abutments, such as bank seats, may need to be checked for these loads.

Live loading at the rear of the abutment is represented by a surcharge loading (see BS 5400

Part 2:2006 clause 5.8.2 or PD 6694-1:2011 clause 7.6). Traction, braking and skidding loads

at the rear of the abutment are not required to be consider when using EN 1991-2:2003 (see

clause 4.9.2). The curtain wall (also called upstand wall or ballast wall) does however need to

be designed for braking forces.

Vehicle collision on abutments need not normally be considered as they are assumed to have

sufficient mass to withstand the collision loads for global purposes (See BD 60/04 clause 2.2,

or NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006 clause NA.2.13).

4.Stability

Stability of the abutment is determined by considering:

Sliding

Overturning

A comprehensive Ground Investigation Report is essential for the design of the bridge

structure. Boreholes need to provide information about the nature of the ground below the

foundations. Adequate sampling and testing also need to be carrried out to obtain design

parameters for allowable bearing pressures, together with friction and cohesion values of the

soil at foundation level.

When using BD 30 sliding and overturning effects are calculated using nominal loads and

active earth pressures. A factor of safety of 2.0 is used to ensure that the abutment is stable

against sliding and overturning.

When using EN 1997-1:2004 stability needs to be considered at serviceability and ultimate

limit states.

Several load cases need to be considered to ensure all loading conditions are catered for.

Construction sequences also need to be considered. The abutment wall will often be

constructed and backfilled up to bearing shelf level; this provides good access for the deck

construction. A surcharge load can be applied to the wall by the construction plant used to

compact the backfill. This surcharge load, together with the active backfill earth pressures,

will be acting on the back of the wall without the stabilising effects of the dead load from the

deck and can result in a critical loading case.

Allowable bearing pressures are obtained from the Ground Investigation Survey. An

allowable pressure is usually determined to limit settlement to about 20 to 25mm. An

alternative is provided in EN 1997-1:2004 to limit the maximum SLS pressure under the

foundation to a fraction of the ground strength; PD 6694-1:2011 clause 5.2.2 clarifies this

fraction to be one third. As the allowable pressure will be dependent on the size of foundation

and loads applied then there will need to be an initial assessment of the loads and foundation

sizes before an allowable pressure can be given. This results in some redesigning until the

correct base size, applied loads and allowable bearing pressures are obtained.

BS 8002 says that instability of the earth mass involving a slip failure may occur where:

the wall is built on sloping ground which itself is close to limiting equilibrium; or

increases only gradually with depth; or

the structure is underlain by strata within which high pore water pressures may

develop from natural or artificial sources.

If none of these conditions are present then a slip failure analysis will not be necessary.

Design the fixed and free end cantilever abutments to the 20m span deck shown to carry HA

and 45 units of HB loading. Analyse the abutments using a unit strip method. The bridge site

is located south east of Oxford (to establish the range of shade air temperatures).

Vehicle collision on the abutments need not be considered as they are assumed to have

sufficient mass to withstand the collision loads for global purposes (See BD 60/04 Clause

2.2).

The ground investigation report shows suitable founding strata about 9.5m below the

proposed road level. Test results show the founding strata to be a cohesionless soil having an

angle of shearing resistance () = 30o and a safe bearing capacity of 400kN/m2.

Backfill material will be Class 6N with an effective angle of internal friction (') = 35o and

density () = 19kN/m3.

The proposed deck consists of 11No. Y4 prestressed concrete beams and concrete deck slab

as shown.

Loading From the Deck

A grillage analysis gave the following reactions for the various load cases:

Critical Reaction Under One Beam

Nominal Reaction

(kN)

Ultimate Reaction

(kN)

Concrete Deck

180

230

Surfacing

30

60

HA udl+kel

160

265

45 units HB

350

500

Total Reaction on Each Abutment

Nominal Reaction

(kN)

Ultimate Reaction

(kN)

Concrete Deck

1900

2400

Surfacing

320

600

HA udl+kel

1140

1880

45 units HB

1940

2770

Nominal loading on 1m length of abutment:

Deck Dead Load = (1900 + 320) / 11.6 = 191kN/m

HA live Load on Deck = 1140 / 11.6 = 98kN/m

HB live Load on Deck = 1940 / 11.6 = 167kN/m

From BS 5400 Part 2 Figures 7 and 8 the minimum and maximum shade air temperatures are

-19 and +37oC respectively.

For a Group 4 type strucutre (see fig. 9) the corresponding minimum and maximum effective

bridge temperatures are -11 and +36oC from tables 10 and 11.

Hence the temperature range = 11 + 36 = 47oC.

From Clause 5.4.6 the range of movement at the free end of the 20m span deck = 47 12

10-6 20 103 = 11.3mm.

The ultimate thermal movement in the deck will be [(11.3 / 2) f3 fL] = [11.3 1.1 1.3 /

2] = 8mm.

Option 1 - Elastomeric Bearing:

With a maximum ultimate reaction = 230 + 60 + 500 = 790kN then a suitable elastomeric

bearing would be Ekspan's Elastomeric Pad :Bearing EKR35:

Note: the required shear deflection (8mm) should be limited to between 30% to 50% of the

thickness of the bearing. The figure quoted in the catalogue for the maximum shear deflection

is 70% of the thickness.

A tolerance is also required for setting the bearing if the ambient temperature is not at the mid

range temperature. The design shade air temperature range will be -19 to +37oC which would

require the bearings to be installed at a shade air temperature of [(37+19)/2 -19] = 9oC to

achieve the 8mm movement.

If the bearings are set at a maximum shade air temperature of 16oC then, by proportion the

deck will expand 8(37-16)/[(37+19)/2] = 6mm and contract 8(16+19)/[(37+19)/2] =

10mm.

Let us assume that this maximum shade air temperature of 16oC for fixing the bearings is

specified in the Contract and design the abutments accordingly.

Horizontal load at bearing for 10mm contraction = 12.14 10 = 121kN.

This is an ultimate load hence the nominal horizontal load = 121 / 1.1 / 1.3 = 85kN at each

bearing.

Total horizontal load on each abutment = 11 85 = 935 kN 935 / 11.6 = 81kN/m.

Alternatively using BS 5400 Part 9.1 Clause 5.14.2.6:

H = AGr/tq

Using the Ekspan bearing EKR35

H = 256200 0.9 10-3 10 / 19 = 121kN

This correllates with the value obtained above using the shear stiffness from the

manufacturer's data sheet.

Option 2 - Sliding Bearing:

With a maximum ultimate reaction of 790kN and longitudinal movement of 8mm then a

suitable bearing from the Ekspan EA Series would be /80/210/25/25:

Movement X = 12.5mm

Average nominal dead load reaction = (1900 + 320) / 11 = 2220 / 11 = 200kN

As the mating surface between the stainless steel and PTFE is smaller than the base plate then

the pressure between the sliding faces will be in the order of 5N/mm2.

From Table3 of BS 5400 Part 9.1 the Coefficient of friction = 0.08 for a bearing stress of

5N/mm2

Hence total horizontal load on each abutment when the deck expands or contracts = 2220

0.08 = 180kN 180 / 11.6 = 16kN/m.

Traction and Braking Load - BS 5400 Part 2 Clause 6.10:

Nominal Load for HA = 8kN/m 20m + 250kN = 410kN

Nominal Load for HB = 25% of 45units 10kN 4axles = 450kN

450 > 410kN hence HB braking is critical.

Braking load on 1m width of abutment = 450 / 11.6 = 39kN/m.

When this load is applied on the deck it will act on the fixed abutment only.

Skidding Load - BS 5400 Part 2 Clause 6.11:

Nominal Load = 300kN

300 < 450kN hence braking load is critical in the longitudinal direction.

When this load is applied on the deck it will act at bearing shelf level, and will not affect the

free abutment if sliding bearings are used.

Loading at Rear of Abutment

Backfill

For Stability calculations use active earth pressures = Ka h

Ka for Class 6N material = (1-Sin35) / (1+Sin35) = 0.27

Density of Class 6N material = 19kN/m3

Active Pressure at depth h = 0.27 19 h = 5.13h kN/m2

Hence Fb = 5.13h2/2 = 2.57h2kN/m

Surcharge - BS 5400 Part 2 Clause 5.8.2:

For HA loading surcharge = 10 kN/m2

Assume a surchage loading for the compaction plant to be equivalent to 30 units of HB

Hence Compaction Plant surcharge = 12 kN/m2.

For surcharge of w kN/m2 :

Fs = Ka w h = 0.27wh kN/m

1) Stability Check

There are a number of publications that will give guidance on base sizes for free standing

cantilever walls, Reynolds's Reinforced Concrete Designer's Handbook being one such book.

Alternatively a simple spreadsheet will achieve a result by trial and error.

Load Combinations

(Not applied to free abutment if sliding bearings are provided)

CASE 1 - Fixed Abutment

Weight of wall stem = 1.0 6.5 25 = 163kN/m

Weight of backfill = 4.3 6.5 19 = 531kN/m

Weight of surcharge = 4.3 12 = 52kN/m

Backfill Force Fb = 0.27 19 7.52 / 2 = 144kN/m

Surcharge Force Fs = 0.27 12 7.5 = 24 kN/m

Restoring Effects:

Weight

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Stem

163

1.6

261

Base

160

3.2

512

Backfill

531

4.25

2257

Surcharge

52

4.25

221

=

906

=

3251

Overturning Effects:

F

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Backfill

144

2.5

361

Surcharge

24

3.75

91

=

168

=

452

Factor of Safety Against Overturning = 3251 / 452 = 7.2 > 2.0 OK.

For sliding effects:

Active Force = Fb + Fs = 168kN/m

Frictional force on underside of base resisting movement = W tan() = 906 tan(30o) =

523kN/m

Factor of Safety Against Sliding = 523 / 168 = 3.1 > 2.0 OK.

Bearing Pressure:

Check bearing pressure at toe and heel of base slab = (P / A) (P e / Z) where P e is the

moment about the centre of the base.

P = 906kN/m

A = 6.4m2/m

Z = 6.42 / 6 = 6.827m3/m

Nett moment = 3251 - 452 = 2799kNm/m

Eccentricity (e) of P about centre-line of base = 3.2 - (2799 / 906) = 0.111m

Pressure under base = (906 / 6.4) (906 0.111 / 6.827)

Pressure under toe = 142 + 15 = 157kN/m2 < 400kN/m2 OK.

Pressure under heel = 142 - 15 = 127kN/m2

Hence the abutment will be stable for Case 1.

Analysing the fixed abutment with Load Cases 1 to 6 and the free abutment with Load Cases

1 to 5 using a simple spreadsheet the following results were obtained:

Fixed Abutment:

F of S

Overturning

F of S

Sliding

Bearing

Pressure at Toe

Bearing

Pressure at Heel

Case 1

7.16

3.09

156

127

Case 2

2.87

2.13

386

5

Case 2a

4.31

2.64

315

76

Case 3

3.43

2.43

351

39

Case 4

4.48

2.63

322

83

Case 5

5.22

3.17

362

81

Case 6

3.80

2.62

378

43

F of S

Overturning

F of S

Sliding

Case 1

7.16

3.09

Case 2

2.87

2.13

Case 2a

4.31

2.64

Case 3

3.43

2.43

Case 4

4.48

2.63

Case 5

5.22

3.17

Case 6

3.80

2.62

Bearing

Pressure at Toe

Bearing

Pressure at Heel

Case 1

156

127

Case 2

386

5

Case 2a

315

76

Case 3

351

39

Case 4

322

83

Case 5

362

81

Case 6

378

43

Free Abutment:

F of S

Overturning

F of S

Sliding

Bearing

Pressure at Toe

Bearing

Pressure at Heel

Case 1

7.15

3.09

168

120

Case 2

2.91

2.14

388

7

Case 2a

4.33

2.64

318

78

Case 3

3.46

2.44

354

42

Case 4

4.50

2.64

325

84

Case 5

5.22

3.16

365

82

F of S

Overturning

F of S

Sliding

Case 1

7.15

3.09

Case 2

2.91

2.14

Case 2a

4.33

2.64

Case 3

3.46

2.44

Case 4

4.50

2.64

Case 5

5.22

3.16

Bearing

Pressure at Toe

Bearing

Pressure at Heel

Case 1

168

120

Case 2

388

7

Case 2a

318

78

Case 3

354

42

Case 4

325

84

Case 5

365

82

It can be seen that the use of elastomeric bearings (Case 2) will govern the critical design

load cases on the abutments. We shall assume that there are no specific requirements for

using elastomeric bearings and design the abutments for the lesser load effects by using

sliding bearings.

2) Wall and Base Design

Loads on the back of the wall are calculated using 'at rest' earth pressures. Serviceability and

Ultimate load effects need to be calculated for the load cases 1 to 6 shown above. Again,

these are best carried out using a simple spreadsheet.

Using the Fixed Abutment Load Case 1 again as an example of the calculations:

Wall Design

Ko = 1 - Sin(') = 1 - Sin(35o) = 0.426

fL for horizontal loads due to surcharge and backfill from BS 5400 Part 2 Clause 5.8.1.2:

Serviceability = 1.0

Ultimate = 1.5

f3 = 1.0 for serviceability and 1.1 for ultimate (from BS 5400 Part 4 Clauses 4.2.2 and 4.2.3)

Backfill Force Fb on the rear of the wall = 0.426 19 6.52 / 2 = 171kN/m

Surcharge Force Fs on the rear of the wall = 0.426 12 6.5 = 33kN/m

At the base of the Wall:

Serviceability moment = (171 6.5 / 3) + (33 6.5 / 2) = 371 + 107 = 478kNm/m

Ultimate moment = 1.1 1.5 478 = 789kNm/m

Ultimate shear = 1.1 1.5 (171 + 33) = 337kN/m

Analysing the fixed abutment with Load Cases 1 to 6 and the free abutment with Load Cases

1 to 5 using a simple spreadsheet the following results were obtained for the design moments

and shear at the base of the wall:

Fixed Abutment:

Moment

SLS Dead

Moment

SLS Live

Moment

ULS

Shear

ULS

Case 1

371

108

790

337

Case 2a

829

258

1771

566

Case 3

829

486

2097

596

Case 4

829

308

1877

602

Case 5

829

154

1622

543

Case 6

829

408

1985

599

Free Abutment:

Moment

SLS Dead

Moment

SLS Live

Moment

ULS

Shear

ULS

Case 1

394

112

835

350

Case 2a

868

265

1846

581

Case 3

868

495

2175

612

Case 4

868

318

1956

619

Case 5

868

159

1694

559

Concrete to BS 8500:2006

Use strength class C32/40 with water-cement ratio 0.5 and minimum cement content of

340kg/m3 for exposure condition XD2.

Nominal cover to reinforcement = 60mm (45mm minimum cover plus a tolerance c of

15mm).

Reinforcement to BS 4449:2005 Grade B500B: fy = 500N/mm2

Reinforced concrete walls are designed to BS 5400 Part 4 Clause 5.6.

Check classification to clause 5.6.1.1:

Ultimate axial load in wall from deck reactions = 2400 + 600 + 2770 = 5770 kN

0.1fcuAc = 0.1 40 103 11.6 1 = 46400 kN > 5770 design as a slab in accordance with

clause 5.4

Bending

BS 5400 Part 4 Clause 5.4.2 for reisitance moments in slabs design to clause 5.3.2.3:

z = {1 - [ 1.1fyAs) / (fcubd) ]} d

Use B40 @ 150 c/c:

As = 8378mm2/m, d = 1000 - 60 - 20 = 920mm

z = {1 - [ 1.1 500 8378) / (40 1000 920) ]} d = 0.875d < 0.95d OK

Mu = (0.87fy)Asz = 0.87 500 8378 0.875 920 10-6 = 2934kNm/m > 2175kNn/m

OK

Carrying out the crack control calculation to Clause 5.8.8.2 gives a crack width of 0.2mm <

0.25mm.

Also the steel reinforcement and concrete stresses meet the limitations required in clause

4.1.1.3 serviceability requirements are satisfied.

Shear

Shear requirements are designed to BS 5400 clause 5.4.4:

v = V / (bd) = 619 103 / (1000 920) = 0.673 N/mm2

No shear reinforcement is required when v < svc

s = (500/d)1/4 = (500 / 920)1/4 = 0.86

vc = (0.27/m)(100As/bwd)1/3(fcu)1/3 = (0.27 / 1.25) ({100 8378} / {1000 920})1/3 (40)1/3

= 0.72

svc = 0.86 0.72 = 0.62 N/mm2 < 0.673 hence shear reinforcement should be provided,

however check shear at distance H/8 (8.63 / 8 = 1.079m) up the wall.

ULS shear at Section 7H/8 for load case 4 = 487 kN

v = V / (bd) = 487 103 / (1000 920) = 0.53 N/mm2 < 0.62

Hence height requiring strengthening = 1.073 (0.673 - 0.62) / (0.673 - 0.53) = 0.4m < d.

Provide a 500 500 splay at the base of the wall with B32 @ 150c/c bars in sloping face.

Early Thermal Cracking

Considering the effects of casting the wall stem onto the base slab by complying with the

early thermal cracking of concrete to BD 28 then B16 horizontal lacer bars @ 150 c/c will

be required in both faces in the bottom half of the wall.

Minimum area of secondary reinforcement to Clause 5.8.4.2 = 0.12% of bad = 0.0012 1000

920 = 1104 mm2/m (use B16 @ 150c/c - As = 1340mm2/m)

Base Design

Maximum bending and shear effects in the base slab will occur at sections near the front and

back of the wall. Different load factors are used for serviceability and ultimate limit states so

the calculations need to be carried out for each limit state using 'at rest pressures'

Using the Fixed Abutment Load Case 1 again as an example of the calculations:

CASE 1 - Fixed Abutment Serviceability Limit State

fL = 1.0 f3 = 1.0

Weight of wall stem = 1.0 6.5 25 1.0 = 163kN/m

Weight of base = 6.4 1.0 25 1.0 = 160kN/m

Weight of backfill = 4.3 6.5 19 1.0 = 531kN/m

Weight of surcharge = 4.3 12 1.0 = 52kN/m

B/fill Force Fb = 0.426 19 7.52 1.0 / 2 = 228kN/m

Surcharge Force Fs = 0.426 12 7.5 1.0 = 38 kN/m

Restoring Effects:

Weight

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Stem

163

1.6

261

Base

160

3.2

512

Backfill

531

4.25

2257

Surcharge

52

4.25

221

=

906

=

3251

Overturning Effects:

F

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Backfill

288

2.5

570

Surcharge

38

3.75

143

=

266

=

713

Bearing Pressure at toe and heel of base slab = (P / A) (P e / Z)

P = 906kN/m

A = 6.4m2/m

Z = 6.42 / 6 = 6.827m3/m

Nett moment = 3251 - 713 = 2538kNm/m

Eccentricity (e) of P about centre-line of base = 3.2 - (2538 / 906) = 0.399m

Pressure under base = (906 / 6.4) (906 0.399 / 6.827)

Pressure under toe = 142 + 53 = 195kN/m2

Pressure under heel = 142 - 53 = 89kN/m2

Pressure at front face of wall = 89 + {(195 - 89) 5.3 / 6.4} = 177kN/m2

Pressure at rear face of wall = 89 + {(195 - 89) 4.3 / 6.4} = 160kN/m2

SLS Moment at a-a = (177 1.12 / 2) + ([195 - 177] 1.12 / 3) - (25 1.0 1.12 / 2) =

99kNm/m (tension in bottom face).

SLS Moment at b-b = (89 4.32 / 2) + ([160 - 89] 4.32 / 6) - (25 1.0 4.32 / 2) - (531

CASE 1 - Fixed Abutment Ultimate Limit State

fL for fill and surcharge(vetical) = 1.2

fL for fill and surcharge(horizontal) = 1.5

Weight of wall stem = 1.0 6.5 25 1.15 = 187kN/m

Weight of base = 6.4 1.0 25 1.15 = 184kN/m

Weight of backfill = 4.3 6.5 19 1.2 = 637kN/m

Weight of surcharge = 4.3 12 1.2 = 62kN/m

Backfill Force Fb = 0.426 19 7.52 1.5 / 2 = 341kN/m

Surcharge Force Fs = 0.426 12 7.5 1.5 = 58 kN/m

Restoring Effects:

Weight

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Stem

187

1.6

299

Base

184

3.2

589

Backfill

637

4.25

2707

Surcharge

62

4.25

264

=

1070

=

3859

Overturning Effects:

F

Lever Arm

Moment About A

Backfill

341

2.5

853

Surcharge

58

3.75

218

=

399

=

1071

Bearing Pressure at toe and heel of base slab = (P / A) (P x e / Z)

P = 1070kN/m

A = 6.4m2/m

Z = 6.42 / 6 = 6.827m3/m

Nett moment = 3859 - 1071 = 2788kNm/m

Eccentricity (e) of P about centre-line of base = 3.2 - (2788 / 1070) = 0.594m

Pressure under base = (1070 / 6.4) (1070 0.594 / 6.827)

Pressure under toe = 167 + 93 = 260kN/m2

Pressure under heel = 167 - 93 = 74kN/m2

Pressure at front face of wall = 74 + {(260 - 74) 5.3 / 6.4} = 228kN/m2

Pressure at rear face of wall = 74 + {(260 - 74) 4.3 / 6.4} = 199kN/m2

f3 = 1.1

ULS Shear at a-a = 1.1 {[(260 + 228) 1.1 / 2] - (1.15 1.1 25)} = 260kN/m

ULS Shear at b-b = 1.1 {[(199 + 74) 4.3 / 2] - (1.15 4.3 25) - 637 - 62} = 259kN/m

ULS Moment at a-a = 1.1 {(228 1.12 / 2) + ([260 - 228] 1.12 / 3) - (1.15 25 1.0

1.12 / 2)} = 148kNm/m (tension in bottom face).

ULS Moment at b-b = 1.1 {(74 4.32 / 2) + ([199 - 74] 4.32 / 6) - (1.15 25 1.0 4.32 /

2) - (637 4.3 / 2) - (62 4.3 / 2)} = -769kNm/m (tension in top face).

Analysing the fixed abutment with Load Cases 1 to 6 and the free abutment with Load Cases

1 to 5 using a simple spreadsheet the following results were obtained:

Fixed Abutment Base:

Section a-a

ULS Shear

SLS Moment

ULS Moment

Case 1

261

99

147

Case 2a

528

205

302

Case 3

593

235

340

Case 4

550

208

314

Case 5

610

241

348

Case 6

637

255

365

Section b-b

ULS

Shear

SLS

Moment

ULS

Moment

Case 1

259

447

768

Case 2a

458

980

1596

Case 3

553

1178

1834

Case 4

495

1003

1700

Case 5

327

853

1402

Case 6

470

1098

1717

Section a-a

ULS

Shear

SLS

Moment

ULS

Moment

Case 1

267

101

151

Case 2a

534

207

305

Case 3

598

236

342

Case 4

557

211

317

Case 5

616

243

351

Section b-b

ULS

Shear

SLS

Moment

ULS

Moment

Case 1

266

475

816

Case 2a

466

1029

1678

Case 3

559

1233

1922

Case 4

504

1055

1786

Case 5

335

901

1480

Design for shear and bending effects at sections a-a and b-b for the Free Abutment:

Bending

BS 5400 Part 4 Clause 5.7.3 design as a slab for reisitance moments to clause 5.3.2.3:

z = {1 - [ 1.1fyAs) / (fcubd) ]} d

Use B32 @ 150 c/c:

As = 5362mm2/m, d = 1000 - 60 - 16 = 924mm

z = {1 - [ 1.1 500 5362) / (40 1000 924) ]} d = 0.92d < 0.95d OK

Mu = (0.87fy)Asz = 0.87 500 5362 0.92 924 10-6 = 1983kNm/m > 1922kNm/m

OK

(1983kNm/m also > 1834kNm/m B32 @ 150 c/c suitable for fixed abutment.

For the Serviceability check for Case 3 an approximation of the dead load moment can be

obtained by removing the surcharge and braking loads. The spreadsheet result gives the dead

load SLS moment for Case 3 as 723kNm, thus the live load moment = 1233 - 723 = 510kNm.

Carrying out the crack control calculation to Clause 5.8.8.2 gives a crack width of 0.27mm >

0.25mm Fail.

This could be corrected by reducing the bar spacing, but increase the bar size to B40@150 c/c

Using B40@150c/c the crack control calculation gives a crack width of 0.17mm < 0.25mm

OK.

Also the steel reinforcement and concrete stresses meet the limitations required in clause

4.1.1.3 serviceability requirements are satisfied.

Shear

Shear on Toe - Use Fixed Abutment Load Case 6:

By inspection B32@150c/c will be adequate for the bending effects in the toe (Muls =

365kNm < 1983kNm)

Shear requirements are designed to BS 5400 clause 5.7.3.2(a) checking shear at d away from

the front face of the wall to clause 5.4.4.1:

ULS Shear on toe = 1.1 {(620 + 599) 0.5 0.176 - 1.15 1 0.176 25} = 112kN

v = V / (bd) = 112 103 / (1000 924) = 0.121 N/mm2

No shear reinforcement is required when v < svc

Reinforcement in tension = B32 @ 150 c/c

s = (500/d)1/4 = (500 / 924)1/4 = 0.86

vc = (0.27/m)(100As/bwd)1/3(fcu)1/3 = (0.27 / 1.25) ({100 5362} / {1000 924})1/3 (40)1/3

= 0.62

svc = 0.86 0.62 = 0.53 N/mm2 > 0.121N/mm2 OK

Shear on Heel - Use Free Abutment Load Case 3:

Shear requirements are designed at the back face of the wall to clause 5.4.4.1:

ULS Shear on heel = 1.1 {348 0.5 (5.185 - 2.1) - 1.15 1 4.4 25 - 1.2 4.4 (8.63

19 + 10)} = 559kN

v = V / (bd) = 559 103 / (1000 924) = 0.605 N/mm2

No shear reinforcement is required when v < svc

s = (500/d)1/4 = (500 / 924)1/4 = 0.86

vc = (0.27/m)(100As/bwd)1/3(fcu)1/3 = (0.27 / 1.25) ({100 5362} / {1000 924})1/3 (40)1/3

= 0.62

svc = 0.86 0.62 = 0.53 N/mm2 < 0.605N/mm2 Fail

Rather than provide shear reinforcement try increasing bars to B40 @ 150 c/c (also required

for crack control as shown above).

vc = (0.27/m)(100As/bwd)1/3(fcu)1/3 = (0.27 / 1.25) ({100 8378} / {1000 920})1/3 (40)1/3

= 0.716

svc = 0.86 0.716 = 0.616 N/mm2 > 0.605N/mm2 OK

Early Thermal Cracking

Considering the effects of casting the base slab onto the blinding concrete by complying with

the early thermal cracking of concrete to BD 28 then B16 distribution bars @ 250 c/c will be

required.

Minimum area of main reinforcement to Clause 5.8.4.1 = 0.15% of bad = 0.0015 1000

924 = 1386 mm2/m (use B20 @ 200c/c - As = 1570mm2/m).

Local Effects

Curtain Wall

This wall is designed to be cast onto the top of the abutment after the deck has been built.

Loading will be applied from the backfill, surcharge and braking loads on top of the wall.

HB braking load to BS 5400 clause 6.10 = 25% 45units 4 10kN on 2 axles = 225kN per

axle.

To allow for load distribution effects assume a 45o dispersal to the curtain wall and a 45o

dispersal down the wall, with maximum dispersal of the width of the abutment (11.6m).

This crude analysis will slightly underestimate the peak values in the wall below the load, but

allowance can be made when designing the reinforcement to ensure there is spare capacity.

Then:

1st axle load on back of abutment = 225 / 3.0 = 75kN/m

Dispersed to the base of the curtain wall = 225 / 9.0 = 25 kN/m

Dispersed to the base of the curtain wall = 225 / 11.6 = 19.4 kN/m

For load effects at the top of the curtain wall:

Maximum load on back of abutment = 75 + 34.1 = 109.1kN/m

For load effects at the base of the curtain wall:

Maximum load on back of abutment = 25 + 19.4 = 44.4kN/m

Bending and Shear at Base of 3m High Curtain Wall

Horizontal load due to backfill = 0.426 19 3.02 / 2 = 36.4 kN/m

SLS Moment = (44.4 3.0) + (25.6 1.5) + (36.4 1.0) = 208 kNm/m (36 dead + 172 live)

ULS Moment = 1.1 {(1.1 44.4 3.0) + (1.5 25.6 1.5) + (1.5 36.4 1.0)} = 285

kNm/m

ULS Shear = 1.1 {(1.1 44.4) + (1.5 25.6) + (1.5 36.4)} = 156kN/m

400 thick curtain wall with B32 @ 150 c/c :

Mult = 584 kNm/m > 285 kNm/m OK

SLS Moment produces crack width of 0.14mm < 0.25 OK

svc = 0.97 N/mm2 > v = 0.48 N/mm2 Shear OK

M. Dicleli

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil Engineering and Construction

Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois 61625, USA

Email: mdicleli@usa.net

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a computer program developed for limit states analysis of abutments. The program can

perform both structural and geotechnical analysis of bridge abutments and check their resistances in

compliance with limit states design criteria. In the program, the earth pressure coefficient for the backfill soil is

calculated as a function of abutments lateral non-linear displacement. Therefore, for abutments partially

restrained against lateral movement, an earth pressure coefficient less than that of at-rest conditions may be

obtained. This may result in a more economical design.

KEYWORDS

Bridge; abutment; foundation; limit-state-design; soil-structure-interaction; optimization

1. Introduction

Limit states are conditions under which a structure can no longer perform its intended

functions. The limit states design (LSD) process considers two conditions to satisfy; the

ultimate and the serviceability limit states. The ultimate limit states (ULS) are related to the

safety of the structure and they define the limits for its total or partial collapse. The

serviceability limit states (SLS) represent those conditions, which adversely affect the

expected performance of the structure under service loads.

LSD has received particular attention in the geotechnical and structural engineering literature

over the last three decades. Many researchers and practicing engineers have documented their

findings on this subject [1-18]. Guidance with the application of limit state design procedures

is available through a number of design codes [1922]. However, the application of LSD to

substructures is more recent. In the past, substructure design was based on allowable stress

or working stress design (WSD), while the superstructure design was based on LSD. The use

of LSD philosophy for superstructures and WSD philosophy for substructures led to

confusions. The confusion potentially exists with respect to loading at soil-structure interface

for the evaluation of ultimate limit states (ULS). The structural engineer employing the LSD

approach for the design of substructures thinks in terms of factored loads to be supported by

the bearing soil. The geotechnical engineer using WSD approach in soil bearing capacity

assessment thinks in terms of nominal loads and allowable soil pressures. Therefore, the

geotechnical report provides the structural engineer with the values of allowable soil

pressure. The structural engineer then interprets the meaning of the recommended soil

pressure and factors it in an effort to compare it with the responses due to factored structural

loads. Nevertheless, the recommended soil bearing pressure may be controlled by settlement

considerations or SLS rather than bearing failure considerations or ULS. Obviously, a sense

for the actual level of safety has been lost through the incompatible design process. The

foundation may be over-designed resulting in loss of economy rather than the improved

economy that LSD is supposed to provide. Therefore, it became evident that a limit state

approach was required for geotechnical design.

The LSD process for the design of bridge abutments is more tedious than WSD process. It

requires two different analyses to satisfy the structure performance for both SLS and ULS.

The ULS itself requires more than one analysis to satisfy the geotechnical and the structural

limit states. Generally, designers try to obtain the optimal structure dimensions to satisfy the

limit states criteria by following a trial-and-error analysis and design procedure.

Nevertheless, a manually performed trial-and-error analysis and design iteration to obtain the

optimal structure dimensions and reinforcement under different loading conditions and given

limit states criteria could be inaccurate, tedious and time consuming. Considering these, a

computer program, ABA, for the analysis and design of bridge abutments has been

developed.

In the subsequent sections, first, the general features of the program, ABA are described. This

is followed by a brief description of the general program structure. Next, the procedure used

in the program for calculating backfill pressure coefficient is defined. Then, the LSD

procedure implemented in the program for bridge abutment design is introduced. This

included the procedure for checking the stability of the structure for sliding and overturning

and the calculation of base pressure, pile axial forces, structural responses and resistances.

Following this, simple design-aid charts for retaining walls are introduced.

ABA is capable of analyzing bridge abutments and retaining walls and checking their

structural and geotechnical resistance using LSD criteria. Retaining walls are programmed as

a sub-element of abutments and therefore the word abutment will mean both retaining wall

and abutment thereafter.

2.1 Abutment Geometry

ABA analyses the general type of reinforced concrete abutment shown in Figures 1(a) and

(b). The generic shape of the abutments wing-wall is defined in Fig. 1(c). In the program,

the geometry of the abutment can be modified by assigning constraints to its dimensions.

The ballast-wall and the breast-wall parts of the abutment obtained by assigning various

constraints to their dimensions are illustrated in Figures 2(a) and (b).

The geometry and local coordinate axes of the abutment footing are shown in Fig. 3. For

abutments with deep foundations, piles are defined in rows extending along X2 footing local

coordinate axes as shown in Figures 4(a) and (b). The number of piles in a row and the

location of each row from the centroid of the footing are input by the user. Each row may

have piles with identical batters perpendicular to row direction. If a row contains piles with

different batters, then it may be defined as a combination of two or more rows of piles located

at the same distance from the centroid of the footing. The piles at both ends of each row may

also have batters parallel to row direction. The piles are assumed to have constant spacing

within a row and located symmetrically with respect to the X1 footing local coordinate axis.

2.2 Loads

The types of loads allowed by the program to act on the abutments are; concentrated loads at

the bearings, surcharge pressure, backfill soil pressure, soil compaction load, self weight of

the abutment, backfill soil and barrier walls on wing-walls. The concentrated loads may

belong to one of permanent, transitory or exceptional load groups shown in Table 1.

Surcharge pressure is assumed to act over the entire surface area of the backfill soil at the

abutment top level. It may belong to either permanent or transitory load group. The backfill

soil pressure is either calculated internally by the program as a function of structure lateral

displacement or it can be defined externally by the user. The user defines compaction load at

the surface of the backfill soil. The program then internally defines the linearly varying lateral

earth pressure due to this compaction load. The program also internally calculates the selfweight of the abutment, backfill soil, and barrier-walls-on-wing-walls.

ABA consists of a control program that manages the database, an analysis and design engine

and a graphical user interface (GUI) for user data input. Fig. 5 illustrates the program

structure. The analysis and design engine consists of three modules; abutment analysis

module, footing analysis module and resistance module. The abutment analysis module

performs the analysis of the abutments excluding the footing part. The footing analysis

module then performs the analysis for the footing part of the abutment or it can be operated

independently. The resistance module then calculates the structural resistance of any specified

cross-section on the structure. As shown in Fig. 5, the control program first allows the user to

define the properties of the abutment and its footing using the GUI. The user-defined data is

then stored in a structured database, which contains material, geometry, loading data and

control flags. The program then uses this database for the analysis and design of the

abutment. The control program operates the necessary sub-module depending on the analysis

type. If footing is analyzed as part of abutment, then the control program first initiates the

abutment analysis module. Next, it stores the footing load data, obtained from the abutment

analysis module, in the database. Then, it calls the footing analysis module to complete the

analysis. Finally, it calls the resistance module to perform structural resistance calculations.

In the program, separate earth pressure conditions are considered behind the abutment for

geotechnical and structural LSD. For the geotechnical LSD, active earth pressure condition

is considered behind the abutment as the structure is assumed to rotate at its base or displace

away from the backfill at the verge of geotechnical limit state conditions such as overturning

or sliding of the structure. Such movements will mobilize the soil to an active state of

equilibrium. For structural LSD, the structure is assumed to have no such movements.

Accordingly, an earth pressure ranging between active and at-rest conditions is considered for

the structural design of the abutment.

The actual earth pressure coefficient, K, may change between active, Ka and at-rest, Ko, earth

pressure coefficients depending on the amount of lateral deformation of the abutment due to

the permanently applied loads. Past researchers obtained the variation of earth pressure

coefficient as a function of structure top displacement from experimental data and finite

element analyses [17, 23]. For practical purposes, this variation is assumed as linear as

shown in Fig. 6. This linear relationship is expressed as:

(1)

Where, d is the top displacement of the earth retaining structure away from the backfill soil

and , is the slope of the earth pressure variation depicted in Fig. 6. The calculated top

displacement of the abutment and the active and at-rest earth pressure coefficients are

substituted into the above equation to obtain the actual earth pressure coefficient for the

structural design. A similar approach was followed elsewhere [24, 25] to estimate the passive

earth pressure coefficient for the backfill soil for the design of integral-abutment bridges. In

the program, Coulomb theory [26] is used to calculate the active and at-rest lateral earth

pressure coefficients assuming zero friction between the wall surface and the backfill. The

effect of backfill slope on the active earth pressure coefficient is also considered in the

program.

Structure Model

The structure models shown in Fig. 7 are used in the program for the calculation of abutment

top displacement. Only the effects of unfactored dead loads and backfill pressure are

considered in the calculations. The eccentricities due to the dead load reactions on the

bearings are also taken into consideration by applying a concentrated moment at the point of

application of the dead loads on the structure model. The abutment is modeled as a cantilever

having a unit width and a variable cross-section along its height. The cantilever element is

then connected to the footing member. The footing is modeled as a vertical rigid bar with a

rotational spring connected to its end. The length of this rigid bar is set equal to the footing

depth, hf. The rotational spring at the end of the rigid bar simulates the effect of footing

rotation on the magnitude of abutment top displacement. The loads acting on the abutment

are proportioned to the unit width of the abutment.

The bridge deck may restrain the lateral displacement of the abutment. The degree of this

restraint is based on the type of bearings used. For frictional bearings, the restraining force is

equal to the total dead load reaction force on the bearing, multiplied by the coefficient of

friction for the type of bearing used. In the program, first a fictitious rigid lateral support is

introduced in the structure model at the bearing location. Next, the lateral reaction force due

to the applied loads is calculated at this support. If the restraining force provided by the

bearings is smaller than this reaction force, it is applied at the bearings' location in the model

as shown in Fig. 7. Otherwise, the movement is assumed to be totally restrained and the earth

pressure coefficient is set equal to Ko. For elastomeric bearings, the restraining force is

proportional to the lateral displacement of the abutment at bearing's location and the stiffness

of the bearing. A spring with stiffness identical to that of the elastomeric bearings is placed at

the bearing location as shown in Fig. 7 to simulate the restraining effect of the bearings. The

stiffness of this spring per unit width of abutment is expressed in the program as:

(2)

Where, nb is the number of bearings, Gb is the shear modulus of the bearing material, Ab is the

plan area of the bearing, hb is the bearing height and wa is the total width of the abutment.

For bearings providing lateral fixity at the abutments, the movement is assumed to be

restrained and the earth pressure coefficient is set equal to Ko. In the case of cantilever

retaining walls, no restraint is considered in the displacement calculation.

The stiffness of the rotational spring in the model is determined by the rotational stiffness of

the footing. For shallow foundations, the rotational stiffness, Kf, of the footing is expressed

as [27]:

(3)

Where, B1 and B2 are the plan dimensions of the footing respectively parallel and

perpendicular to the bridge longitudinal directions and ks is the coefficient of sub-grade

reaction for the bearing soil input by the user. In the case of pile foundations, the rotational

stiffness of the foundation is calculated in the program as [27]:

(4)

Where, nr is the number of pile rows, Ep is the modulus of elasticity of pile material, Ap and

Lp are respectively, the cross-sectional area and length of a single pile and di is the distance of

pile row i, from the geometric centerline of the footing.

A closed form solution for the reaction forces at the translational and rotational springs in the

model is obtained for each type of load applied on the structure and implemented in the

program.

Calculation of Top Displacement

The displacement, *T, at the top of the abutment is calculated in the program using the

following equation.

(5)

Where, Mb is the total moment at the footing base, M and m are moments, respectively, due to

the externally applied loads and a horizontal unit dummy load applied at the top of the

abutment, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of abutment concrete and Ia and ha are respectively

the moment of inertia and height of the abutment. The first set of terms in the above equation

represents the contribution of footing rotation to the top displacement. The integration

represents the contribution of the abutments flexural deformation to the top displacement and

is obtained using the unit dummy load method [28]. Note that the expression, M/EcIa, in the

integral is the curvature of the abutment due to the applied loads. The integration is

performed numerically using the trapezoidal rule of numerical integration method [29]. The

structure model is first divided into 100 segments and the resulting segment length is used as

an integration step. The moment, M, due to externally applied loads is then calculated at each

point of integration. Next, the inelastic curvature ( =M/EcIa) corresponding to the applied

moment and axial force is calculated using nonlinear material models for concrete and steel

to obtain an accurate estimate of structure displacement. The procedure followed to calculate

the curvature is defined in the subsequent sections. The moment, m, due to the unit dummy

load is also calculated at the integration points and multiplied by the calculated curvature and

an integration factor which is a function of the type of numerical integration method used.

For this particular case, the integration factor is 0.5 for the first and last points of integration

and 1.0 for the rest. Finally, the top displacement due to the flexural deformation of the

abutment is obtained by summing up the results obtained for each integration point and

multiplying the sum by the integration step.

Material Models

In the calculation of non-linear curvatures, the following constitutive relationship is used for

concrete stress, fc, in compression, as a function of concrete strain c [30]:

(6)

(7)

Where, f''co is the specified strength of abutment concrete, 01, and 085 are the strains at

peak and 85% of the peak strength.

For concrete stress in tension, the following linear constitutive relationship is used:

(8)

(9)

Where, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and is expressed as:

(10)

cr is the strain at cracking and is expressed by the following equation;

(11)

For the stress, fs, in reinforcing steel, the following elasto-plastic stress-strain relationship is

assumed.

(12)

(13)

The strain hardening part of the stress-strain relationship for steel is not considered in the

above equations, since under service loads the stress in steel will not reach the strain

hardening region.

Calculation of Moment Curvature Relationship

In the program, to calculate the curvature corresponding to an applied moment, M, and an

axial force, P, at a cross-section along the abutment, first, an extreme fiber compressive

strain, cu, is assumed for concrete as shown in Fig. 8. The slope of the strain diagram is

established for an assumed location, c, of neutral axis measured from the top of the section.

Corresponding compressive and tensile stresses in concrete and steel are determined from

material models described above. Internal forces in concrete, as well as reinforcing steel are

calculated. The section is divided into rectangular strips for the purpose of calculating

compressive forces in concrete as shown in Fig. 8. First, the concrete stress at the middle of

each strip is calculated and multiplied by the area of the strip. Then, the results are summed

up to obtain the total force due to compressive concrete stresses. To calculate the tensile

forces in concrete, first, the depth of the uncracked concrete tension zone, ccr, is determined

by dividing the strain of concrete at cracking by the slope of the strain diagram. The volume

of the concrete tensile stress diagram over the area of the uncracked tensile zone is then

calculated to obtain the total force due to tensile concrete stresses. Once the internal forces

are computed, the equilibrium is checked by comparing them with the externally applied

axial forces. If the equilibrium is satisfied within a prescribed range of accuracy, the

assumption for neutral axis location is verified. Otherwise, the neutral axis location is revised

and the same process is repeated until the equilibrium is satisfied. Next, the internal moment

is calculated and compared with the moment due to the applied loads. If the difference is

smaller then an assumed tolerance value, the analysis is stopped, otherwise, the program

continues the analysis with the next selected extreme compression fiber strain. At the end of

the analysis the extreme fiber compression strain is divided by the distance to neutral axis to

calculate the inelastic curvature, .

In the program, the following SLS and ULS conditions are considered for geotechnical and

structural design of the abutment..

Geotechnical:

SLS soil resistance for shallow foundations or SLS pile axial resistance for deep

foundations,

ULS soil resistance for shallow foundations or ULS pile axial resistance for deep

foundations,

Structural:

The ULS conditions are checked using separate factors of safety on loads and structure

resistance. The ULS load combinations and maximum and minimum values of load factors

are shown respectively in Tables 1 and 2 [22]. Table 3 tabulates the resistance factors for

various geotechnical ULS conditions [22] used in the program. The SLS conditions for

abutments are checked using unfactored loads and structure resistance. The load combination

used in the program for SLS is also illustrated in Table 1.

The three-dimensional effects of applied loads and structure weight, including the weight of

the wing-walls, are considered in the program for the geotechnical and structural design of

the abutment foundation. For sloping backfill soil conditions, the effect of vertical component

of earth pressure is also considered in the foundation's design. The total weight of the backfill

soil, including the sloping part, is averaged as a uniformly distributed load and applied on the

footing's top surface. The procedure used in the program for the structural and geotechnical

analysis of the structure components is described in the following sub-sections.

Optimization of Load Effects

In the program, each load is input separately with an identification number (ID) and a type ID

as shown in Table 2. The load effects are factored and combined according to their type ID

using the load combinations in Table 1. Each load may have more than one case of

application, or load-case. For example, to define the possible detrimental effects of live load

on an abutment footing, more than one load case may be considered to maximize the effects

of sliding, overturning and base pressure. Obviously, these cases can not be combined

simultaneously as they belong to the same live load applied at various locations on the bridge.

Nevertheless, the one, which results in the most detrimental effect, is output as an envelope

response.

For the analysis of the abutment, a maximum and a minimum factored horizontal load is

combined with a maximum or a minimum factored vertical load. The combinations that

result in the most detrimental load effect are used for geotechnical and structural resistance

checks. The correlation between the minimum and maximum load factors shown in Table 2

for permanent loads is considered when combining the loads to optimize their detrimental

effect on the structure. For example, the maximum load factor for lateral earth pressure

loading is used with the minimum load factor for the structure weight to maximize the effect

of overturning. However, in another case, the maximum load factor for structure weight is

considered when maximizing the effect of axial load on piles for deep foundations. Some

transient loads are also removed if their effect is counteracting the detrimental effect of other

applied loads. For example, the live load on the structure is removed if its effect is

favourable to the strength or stability of the structure. It is noteworthy that all possible load

combinations are considered regardless of their resulting effects on the structure. However, at

the end, the envelope responses due to such load combinations are used to check if the

structure has adequate resistance to endure the applied loads.

Base Pressure Calculations for Shallow Foundations

The forces applied on a foundation produces horizontal and vertical stresses in the ground.

The aim of shallow foundation design is to ensure that those stresses do not exceed the

ultimate resistance of the foundation soil and do not cause deformations that will affect the

serviceability of the structure. Accordingly, for abutments with shallow foundations, two sets

of soil pressure limits are used in the program to check the geotechnical capacity of the

bearing soil. One of them is expected to satisfy the resistance aspect at ULS and the other

one is expected to satisfy the criteria associated with the tolerance of either the soil or the

structure to deformation at the SLS [22]. The program analyzes the abutment foundation for

both ULS and SLS conditions. The condition, which yields the lower of the values for

factored geotechnical resistance at ULS or geotechnical reaction at SLS, then governs the

geotechnical design of the foundation.

For the ULS design of abutment footings, a contact pressure of uniform distribution is

assumed such that the centroid of the vertical component of the applied load coincides with

the vertical component of the bearing pressure as shown in Fig. 9. Accordingly, the

dimensions, b1 and b2 of the uniform pressure block, are expressed in the program as follows:

(14)

(15)

Where, B1 and B2 are the plan dimensions of the footing and e1 and e2 are the eccentricities of

the applied load parallel to B1 and B2 faces of the footing. It is noteworthy that the effect of

lateral forces acting on the footing surface is carried to the base of the foundation when

calculating the eccentricities [31]. The ULS base pressure, qf , due to a factored eccentric

resultant vertical load, PRf, on the footing, is then calculated as follows:

(16)

Where, qf represents a minimum resistance expected from the soil and it is compared with the

ultimate bearing resistance, qu, of the foundation soil. In the program, the effect of horizontal

load on the ultimate bearing resistance of the foundation soil is taken into consideration using

a reduction factor, R, expressed as follows:

(17)

Where, D, is the depth of the soil in front of the abutment measured to the base of the footing,

b is the effective width of the ULS pressure block in the direction of interest and x is the ratio

of the factored horizontal load to vertical load. The above expression is based on Meyerhof's

[32,33] bearing resistance equations for an angle of internal friction of 30o. The user-input

ultimate bearing resistance is adjusted by dividing it by the reduction factor calculated using

the above expression. In the program, linear interpolation is used to obtain the reduction

factors for values of D/b other then those defined in the above equation.

Equation 17 indicates that the ultimate bearing resistance of the foundation soil is a function

of the applied loads. Accordingly, in the program, the load combination, which causes the

most detrimental effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of ultimate base pressure to

ultimate bearing resistance.

For the SLS design of abutment footing, the foundation soil is assumed to respond elastically.

Consequently, a linear elastic distribution of contact pressure is used in the analysis. The

abutment footing is assumed to be infinitely rigid for analysis purposes. In the program, the

SLS pressure, q, at the footing corners is first calculated using the following equation and

assuming that all corners are in compression.

(18)

Where A is the plan area of the footing, MRf1 and MRf2 are the resultant moments, respectively

about X1 and X2 footing local axes, due to the applied loads and S1 and S2 are section

modulus of the footing about X1 and X2 footing local axes. If the above expression results in

a tensile pressure at one or more corners of the footing, then, the expressions derived by

Wilson [34] are used in the analysis. Wilson [34] presented three sets of equations to calculate

the actual pressure distribution for the cases where one, two and three corners of the footing

are in tension. In the program, for each load combination, the maximum of the calculated

SLS base pressure at four corners of the footing is stored in an array. The load combination,

which causes the most detrimental effect, is then obtained by optimizing the ratio of the

maximum SLS base pressure to user-input SLS bearing resistance.

Resistance of Shallow Foundations to Horizontal Loads

For the ULS design of abutment footings resting on soil, the sliding failure at the interface

between the footing and the soil is considered in the program. The resistance of the footing to

sliding is generated by the passive earth pressure in front of the abutment as well as cohesion

and friction at the footing-soil interface. The contribution of the passive earth pressure in

front of the abutment is generally neglected in the calculation of sliding resistance since there

is always a possibility that the soil could somehow be disturbed. Accordingly, the following

equation is used in the program to calculate the resistance, Hr, of the footing to sliding.

(19)

Where, Ae is the effective area of contact pressure, Car is the factored apparent cohesion and

is the angle of friction. In the program, the load combination, which causes the most

detrimental effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of factored horizontal load to factored

sliding resistance of the foundation.

Stability of Shallow Foundations

In the program, at the ULS, the eccentricity of the vertical load is restricted to 30% of the

footing dimension in the direction of the eccentricity [22]. This is done to limit the local

bearing stresses in the soil to avoid the possibility of a bearing failure towards the rear of the

footing or overturning. The eccentricity of the factored vertical load is first calculated for

each load combination. The ratio of this eccentricity to the calculated eccentricity limit is

optimized in the program to determine the load combination, which causes the most

detrimental effect.

Calculation of Pile Forces for Deep Foundations

For abutment footings resting on piles, assuming that the pile-cap is infinitely rigid, the axial

force, Ni, in pile, i, is calculated using the following equation:

(20)

Where np is the number of piles, x1i and x2i are the distances of pile i from the local footing

axes origin respectively in X1 and X2 directions. The moments of inertia of pile group, Ip1

and Ip2 respectively about X1 and X2 footing local axes are expressed as:

(21)

(22)

The axial force, Nbi, on a battered pile i, is then obtained using the following equation:

(23)

Where, bp is the pile batter. In the program, the load combination, which causes the most

detrimental effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of calculated pile axial load to the

geotechnical axial capacity of the pile.

Resistance of Deep Foundations to Horizontal Loads

The horizontal forces acting on the footing are resisted by the pile batters and the reaction

forces produced upon horizontal movement of the foundation. The passive earth pressure in

front of the piles as well as the shear forces resulting from pile displacement produces this

latter resistance. Due to the complex nature of soil-pile interaction, which is a function of

various parameters such as number of pile rows, pile spacing etc. [35], this horizontal

resistance is not calculated by the program and is provided by the user. However, the

horizontal resistance due to the pile batters is calculated in the program as the sum of the

horizontal components of calculated axial forces on battered piles. The total horizontal

resistance is then obtained in the program by summing up the calculated horizontal resistance

due to pile batters and the user-input horizontal resistance of the pile group.

Structural Analysis of Footing

For the structural analysis of the footing, two different ULS soil pressure distributions are

considered in the program. The first case considers a contact pressure distribution due to

yielding soil, which approximates a uniform pressure distribution over an effective area, as

explained previously. This pressure distribution is primarily used to check the bearing

resistance of the soil. However, the abutment footing is also structurally designed to sustain

such a pressure. The second case assumes a nearly rigid footing and a linear contact pressure

distribution due to an elastic non-yielding soil where the probable resistance of soil may

exceed the ultimate resistance used in geotechnical design. The program then calculates the

flexural and shear forces in the footing for each contact pressure distribution. Larger of the

structural responses obtained from both cases will then govern the structural design at ULS.

For the SLS condition, only a linear contact pressure distribution is assumed. In the case of

deep foundations, flexural and shear forces in the footing are calculated using the previously

calculated SLS and ULS pile axial forces.

Normally, the program calculates flexural forces at both faces of the abutment wall and shear

forces at a distance 0.9 times the footing thickness from both faces of the abutment wall.

Additional sections can be specified by the user around pile locations in the case of deep

foundations. The calculated flexural and shear forces are then divided by the width of the

footing to obtain the effect of such forces per unit width. The structural resistance

calculations are then performed at the same response locations by the program's resistance

module.

Structural Analysis of Abutment Wall

In the program, the abutment wall is modeled as a cantilever having a unit width in the

transverse direction and a variable thickness in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. The

point of fixity of the cantilever model is assumed at the footing's top surface. The loads

acting on the structure are proportioned to the abutment's unit width and applied on the

model. In the program, the ballast wall and the breast wall are divided respectively into 5 and

10 prescribed locations spaced equally along the abutment height. The responses due to each

applied load are first calculated at these prescribed locations starting from the top and then

combined using Table 1. The structural resistance calculations for the abutment are also

performed by the program's resistance module at the same prescribed locations considering

the combined effects of axial, shear and flexural forces.

Structural Resistance Calculations

The optimum flexural resistance of a reinforced concrete section is a function of the applied

axial force and the extreme fiber compression strain [36, 37]. To calculate the flexural

resistance of a cross section along the structure for a prescribed axial force, the extreme fiber

compression strain,cu, for concrete is varied between 0.0020 and 0.0035 using an incremental

step of 0.0001. For each incremental strain value, the slope of the strain diagram is

established for an assumed location, c, of neutral axis measured from the top of the section as

shown in Figure 8. Corresponding compressive and tensile stresses in concrete and steel are

determined from material models described previously. Internal forces in concrete, as well as

reinforcing steel are calculated. The equilibrium is checked by comparing the resultant

internal force with the externally applied axial force. If the equilibrium is satisfied within a

prescribed range of accuracy, the assumption for neutral axis location is verified. Otherwise,

the neutral axis location is revised and the same process is repeated until the equilibrium is

satisfied. Next, the internal moment is calculated and stored in an array. The program then

continues the analysis with the next selected extreme compression fiber strain until it reaches

the maximum value of 0.0035. At the end of the analyses, the maximum of the stored

moments is selected as the flexural resistance of the section.

The compression field theory [22,38] is implemented in the program to calculate shear

resistance of a cross section on the structure. The shear resistance, Vr, of a reinforced

concrete section without transverse reinforcement is defined as [22]:

(24)

where, is a dimensionless parameter, c is the resistance factor for concrete, bv and dv are

respectively the effective section width and depth used in shear resistance calculations. To

calculate , the angle of inclination, , of principle compressive strain or shear cracks is

varied between 27o and 79o using an incremental step of 1o in the program. For each

incremental value of , the reinforcement tensile strain, x, is calculated using the

following equation:

(25)

Where, Pf, Vf and Mf are respectively the factored axial load, shear and moment acting on the

cross section and Es and As are respectively the modulus of elasticity and area of reinforcing

steel. Then, the principal tensile strain, 1, and are calculated as:

(26)

Where, d is the distance of tensile reinforcement from the extreme compression fibre. The

value of is stored in an array and the procedure is repeated for the next incremental value

of until it reaches the maximum value of 79o. At the end of the analysis, the maximum of

the stored values is used in Equation 24 to calculate the shear resistance of the section.

The program, ABA, is used to obtain the design-aid Tables 4-9 for cantilever retaining walls.

The tables are used in conjunction with Figures 10 and 11. The design-aid tables are

generated for a granular backfill material with a unit weight of 22 kN/m3 and an angle of

internal friction of 30o. This backfill material is commonly used in transportation structures

[22]. The unfactored SLS and ULS bearing resistances of respectively 250 kPa and 750 kPa

are used for the foundation soil as conventional design values. The effective angle of friction

for the foundation soil is assumed as 30o. The compressive strength of concrete is 30 MPa

and the yield strength of steel is 400 MPa. Hydrostatic pressure is not included in the

analysis assuming that the water will be properly drained throughout the granular backfill

material.

In Fig. 10, q1 and q2 are the maximum bearing pressures assuming respectively a linear

pressure distribution at SLS and a uniform pressure distribution at ULS. V and P are

respectively the total ULS vertical and horizontal forces obtained for the most critical load

combination for sliding. In Figure 11, each set of bars is indicated by a letter. The number of

T bars are for each face of footing or wall. The maximum spacing of T bars is 300 mm and

the lap is 600 mm. The dimensions in the figure are in mm.

Tables 4 and 5 provide design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with zero surcharge pressure

and level backfill slope. Table 4 provides dimensions of the wall as a function of its height for

1200 mm and 2200 mm toe soil cover to frost depth. Table 5 provides the length, size and

spacing of reinforcement as well as steel and concrete quantities as a function of wall height.

Tables 6 and 7 provide similar design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with a live load

surcharge pressure of 13.2 kPa, a commonly used design parameter in North America. Tables

8 and 9 provide design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with a backfill slope of 2 horizontal

to 1 vertical.

7. Conclusions

A computer program, developed for the limit states analysis of bridge abutments, is presented

in this paper. Although several other computer programs exist for the analysis of bridge

abutments, they are limited to cases where working stress design approach is used for the

geotechnical analysis of the structure. Different from these conventional programs, the

developed program is able to perform both structural and geotechnical analysis of bridge

abutments and check their resistance to calculated responses using limit states design criteria.

In the program, the earth pressure coefficient for the backfill soil is calculated as a function of

abutments lateral displacement taking into consideration the non-linear force-deformation

relationship of the structure. Therefore, for abutments partially restrained against lateral

movement, an earth pressure coefficient less than that of at-rest conditions may be obtained.

This may result in a more economical design. Design-aid charts for cantilever retaining walls

are also generated using this program.

REFERENCES

1. Meyerhof, G.G. Safety factors in soil mechanics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal

1970; 7: 349-355.

2. Meyerhof, G.G. Limit states design in geotechnical engineering. Structural Safety

1982; 1: 67-71.

3. Meyerhof, G.G. Safety Factors and limit states analysis in geotechnical engineering.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1984; 21: 1-7

International Symposium on Limit State Design In Geotechnical Engineering .

Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society, 1993; 1: 1-12.

5. Meyerhof, G.G. Development of geotechnical limit state design. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 1995; 32: 128-136.

6. Lumb, P. Safety factors and probability distribution of soil strength. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 1970; 7: 225-242.

7. Allen, D. E. Limit States Design - A probabilistic study. Canadian Journal of Civil

Engineering 1975; 2: 36-49.

8. Allen, D. E. Limit states criteria for structural evaluation of existing buildings.

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1991; 18: 995-1004.

9. MacGregor, J.G. Safety and limit states design for reinforced concrete. Canadian

Journal of Civil Engineering 1976; 3: 484-513.

10. Bolton, M. D. Limit state design in geotechnical engineering. Ground Engineering

1981; 14(6): 39-46.

11. Balkie, L. D. Total and partial factors of safety in geotechnical engineering. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 1985; 22: 477-482.

12. Ovesen, N.K. Towards an european code for foundation engineering. Ground

Engineering 1981; 14 (7): 25-28.

13. Ovesen, N.K. Eurocode 7: An european code of practice for geotechnical design.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limit State Design In Geotechnical

Engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society, 1993; 3: 691-710.

14. Ovesen, N. K. and Orr, T. Limit States Design: the european perspective. Proceedings

of Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991. American Society of Civil Engineers,

1991; Special Publication No 27, 2: 1341-1352.

15. Green, R. The development of a LRFD code for Ontario bridge foundations.

Proceedings of Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991. American Society of Civil

Engineers, 1991; Special Publication No 27, 2, 1365-1376.

16. Green, R., (1993), LSD Code for Bridge Foundations, Proceedings of the

International Symposium on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering.

Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society, 1993; 2, 459-468.

17. Barker,R.M.,Duncan,J.M.K.,Rojiani,K.B.,Ooi,P.S.K,Kim,S.G.Manualsfor

thedesignofbridgefoundations.NCHRPReport343.WashingtonD.C.:

TransportationResearchBoard;NationalResearchCouncil,1991.

for foundations. Part I. An overview of the foundation design process., Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 1996; 33, 956-983.

19. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. Third Edition, Ministry of Transportation,

Quality and Standards Division, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1991.

20. European Code for Standardization. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design, general rules.

Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1992.

21. Associate Committee on the National Building Code. National building code of

Canada. National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, 1995.

22. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code - Final Draft. Canadian Standards

Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000.

23. Clough,G.M.,Duncan,J.M.Foundationengineeringhandbook.Fang,H.Y.editor.

NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold,1991.

24. Dicleli,M.Arationaldesignapproachforprestressedconcretegirderintegral

bridges.EngineeringStructures2000;22(3):230245.

25. Dicleli,M.Asimplifiedstructuremodelforcomputeraidedanalysisofintegral

abutmentbridges.ASCEJournalofBridgeEngineering2000;5(3):19

26. Demetrios,E.T.Bridgeengineering:design,rehabilitationandmaintenanceof

modernhighwaybridges.NewYork:McGrawHill,1995.

27. Priestly, M. J. N., Seible, F., Calvi, G. M. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New

York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.

28. Ghali, A and Neville, A. M. Structural analysis: a unified classical and matrix

approach, 3rd edition. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989

29. Maron, M. J. Numerical analysis: a practical approach, 2nd edition. New York:

Macmillan, 1987.

30. Saatcioglu, M. and Razvi, S. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. ASCE

Journal of Structural Engineering 1992; 118(9): 2421-2438.

31. Duan,L.,(1996),Bridgecolumnfootings:animproveddesignprocedure.ASCE

PracticePeriodicalonStructuralDesignandConstruction1996;1(1):2024.

32. Meyerhof, G.G. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechnique 1951;

2: 301-332.

33. Meyerhof, G.G. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined

loads. Proc., 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering. Zurich: 1953; 1: 440-445.

34. Wilson, K. E. Bearing pressures for rectangular footings with biaxial uplift. ASCE

Journal of Bridge Engineering 1997; 2(1): 27-33.

35. Rollins, K., Peterson, K. Weaver T. Full scale pile group lateral load testing in soft

clay. NCEER Bulletin 1996; October: 9-11.

36. MacGregor, J.G. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design, 2nd edition. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1992

37. McCormac, J. C. Design of reinforced concrete, 4th edition. New York: John Wiley

and Sons, 1999.

38. Collins,M.P.,Mitchell,D.Prestressedconcretebasics.Ottawa:Canadian

PrestressedConcreteInstitute,1987.

Appendix

Table 1 -Load factors and load combinations

Limit

Permanent Loads

Transitory Loads

Exceptional Loads

State

D

EQ

SLS-1

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-1

1.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-2

1.60

1.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-3

1.40

1.00

0.50

0.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-4

0.00

1.25

1.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-5

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ULS-6

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.30

0.00

0.00

ULS-7

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.30

0.00

ULS-8

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

A

D

E

F

H

K

L

P

EQ

S

V

W

: Dead load

: Loads due to earth, surcharge or hydrostatic pressure

: Loads due to stream pressure and ice forces or debris torrents

: Collusion load

: Strains and deformations due to temperature variation, creep and shrinkage

: Live load

: Secondary prestress load

: Earthquake load

: Load due to foundation deformation

: Wind load on traffic

: Wind load on structure

D

E

P

: Load factor for load type E

: Load factor for load type P

Notes

Bar Area (mm2)

10M 100

15M 200

20M 300

25M 500

30M 700

35M 1000

Diameter (mm)

11.3

16.0

19.5

25.2

29.9

35.7

Table 2 - Load types and load factors

Type ID

Definition

LS

Load Factor

Group

Max.

Min.

D1

All

1.10

0.95

D2

All

1.20

0.90

D3

All

1.50

0.65

D4

All

1.25

0.80

D5

Water

All

1.10

0.90

E1

All

1.25

0.50

E2

All

1.25

0.80

E3

All

1.25

0.80

E4

Backfill pressure

All

1.25

0.80

E5

Hydrostatic Pressure

All

1.10

0.90

All

1.05

0.95

Live load

SLS 1

0.90

0.00

ULS 1

1.70

0.00

ULS 2

1.60

0.00

ULS 3

1.40

0.00

SLS 1

0.80

0.00

ULS 2

1.15

0.00

ULS 3

1.00

0.00

ULS 4

1.25

0.00

ULS 3

0.50

0.00

ULS 4

1.65

0.00

ULS 3

0.50

0.00

SLS 1

1.00

0.00

EQ

Earthquake load

ULS 5

1.00

0.00

ULS 6

1.30

0.00

ULS 7

1.30

0.00

Collusion load

ULS 8

1.00

0.00

Foundation Type

Geotechnical Resistance

Factor

Shallow Foundations

Bearing resistance

0.5

Passive resistance

0.5

Sliding resistance

0.8

Deep Foundations

Static analysis,

compression

0.4

tension

0.3

compression

0.6

tension

0.4

Dynamic analysis

compression

0.4

Dynamic test

compression

0.5

Static test

Table 4 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=0, backfill

slope=0)

0.5

Table 5 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=0, backfill

slope=0)

Table 6 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=13.2 kPa)

Table 7 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=13.2 kPa)

Table 8 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls (backfill slope=2:1)

Table 9 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls (backfill slope=2:1)

- Module 12 FroschUploaded byUALU333
- Abutment Worked ExampleUploaded byKenaia Adeleye
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SIUploaded byNiezhdanova Arroyo
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SIUploaded byDaniel Gormaz
- Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 1.7 Full Version, OEE Release)Uploaded bykikzph
- types of pileUploaded byLokesh Dungrakoti
- AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 SIUploaded byFatima Azhar
- Design of Balanced Cantilever BridgeUploaded byestructurascadiz
- IR Post Tension WorksUploaded byWr Ar
- JL-11-Fall-9Uploaded byLai Yen
- PC WireUploaded byjupe01
- ballotjuneaugp1_4-3Uploaded byLaura Hernandez
- Price BidUploaded byGoanengineer
- Presetrssed ConcreteUploaded byNeeraj Kumar Thakur
- Pre-tensioning the Spokes in a Bicycle Wheel – Civil Engineering MaterialUploaded byBindesh Chouhan
- s 127 ContentUploaded byAnonymous imkwF8N7Te
- report on failures of foundationsUploaded bySandeep Reddy
- PDA-s Manual 20July15Uploaded byecocadec
- Prestressed Concrete Unit 1Uploaded bymanikandan
- PscUploaded byShah Khan
- Lectures on FoundationsUploaded byhanslo
- FoundationCode2004.pdfUploaded bycu1988
- Br. item.xlsxUploaded byHoque joynul
- Shear in Slabs and BeamsUploaded bySana'a Aamir
- 6Uploaded byMqAshlady
- FoundsUploaded byAnna Amirian
- استاندارد تولید انکوریج پیش تنیدگی Bsi-bs-En-13391-410Uploaded byakanages
- SIA 269-7_en_160113Uploaded byRicardo Pimentel
- 4510000.implUploaded bydarkobogd75
- Postensioning TIANJINUploaded byViviana Sofia

- Premanand Shenoy-2019Uploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Org ChartUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- ISO2018Uploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Roy & Shenoy IntroUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Shenoy-2018Uploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- R&S SIP FormatsUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Her MagazineUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Internship ArticleUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Dr Premanand ShenoyUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Classification of BridgesUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- My Sore Water SupplyUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- SahyawareWU.docxUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Roy&ShenoyUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Roy&ShenoyUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Rs ProfileUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Certificate Form1Uploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- award of ultratech.pdfUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- RULES for InternsUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Certificate Form1.pptxUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Advisary Committee Member for International ConferenceUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- KIADB EmpanelmentUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Shenoy Short ProfileUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- Award of UltratechUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- InvitationUploaded byPremanand Shenoy
- internshipUploaded byPremanand Shenoy

- R Park et alUploaded byAndy Acoustic
- The Iron Warrior: Volume 30, Issue 6Uploaded byThe Iron Warrior
- Overhead Crane, Jib Crane, Gantry CraneUploaded byJamatindo Putra
- Crossing MethodsUploaded bypramodkv38
- 2012 Corporate BrochureUploaded bysarahbabe94
- Forest Eng Manual Bc(2013)Uploaded byalwil144548
- Lect 17_Urban Land Use Planning Theories Introduction to Town PlanningUploaded byZayyan Romjon
- CE2303 pptUploaded bymanikcivil2008
- 3 Ghost StoriesUploaded byMyochic Roskat
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- practicaltreatis00pattrich.pdfUploaded bykaysheph
- Case Study on Tea Transportation SCMUploaded byravi.akkina
- bda_17Uploaded byHundeejireenya
- Supported Scaffolds - Oregon OSHA.pdfUploaded bykenan
- WaterUploaded byAfareen Khan
- KBPC DC Drive Series ManualUploaded byKBElectronicsinc
- Auckland Transport Asset Management Plan 2012-2015 Public Transport NetworkUploaded byGeorge Wood
- Passenger TransportationUploaded byFahad Hossain Emon
- The Age of thermal RefineriesUploaded byFernanda Guerrero
- Vol II Tech Spec Sct1367Uploaded byashish.mathur1
- SRI LANKAN EXPERIENCE OF TSUNAMI AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR NATURAL DISASTERS K.L. Srilal SAHABANDU Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau (CECB)Uploaded bySrilal Sahabandu
- List of Aerial Lift Manufacturers - WikipediaUploaded byglenn
- multipurpose machines using scotch yoke mechanismUploaded bynithinkenator
- Full Specific at in Sd XviiUploaded byLai Quoc
- C60N-H Breaker Disjoncteur Schneider 2Uploaded byRameez Zafar
- kuli2Uploaded byJhonathan Pizarro Choque
- FINAL ITRC Proceedings April 8Uploaded bymehrdad_so1981
- Humber Bay Transit Hub Proposal - Paul Chomik (2014)Uploaded byT.O. Nature & Development
- 2009JuneTranstankEquipmentSolutionsBrochureUploaded bytino3528
- Torts IIUploaded byhey9876543210