Three-dimensional Properties of MSE Bridge Abutments

Nien-Yin Chang1, Trever Wang2, Man Cheung Yip3

1
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Campus Box 113,
P.O. Box 173364, Denver CO 80217-3364, Tel: 303-556-2810; Email: Nien.Chang@cudenver.edu
2
Senior Bridge Engineer, Colorado DOT, 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Denver, CO 80222, Tel: 303-512-4072, Email:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ShingChun.Wang@dot.state.co.us
3
Bridge Engineer, J. F. Sato and Associates, 5808 S. Rapp St., Littleton, CO 80120, Tel: (303)797-1580; Email:
syip@sato.com

Abstract
Conventionally highway bridge abutments are supported on deep foundations. As an embankment approach settles,
it results in a differential settlement between the approach pavement and bridge deck, which causes the traveling
vehicle to experience an impact force. This phenomenon is called “bridge bump.” A mechanically stabilized earth
bridge abutment (MSE abutment) minimizes the damaging and unpleasant bridge bump by eliminating the
differential settlement. This article reports the result of a series of 3-D nonlinear finite element analyses to
investigate the performance of MSE bridge abutments supported on a U-shaped MSE Wall (UMSEW). Overall
structural integrity, sufficient clearance, smooth transition from pavement to bridge deck and pleasing aesthetic
appearance are critical long-term performance requirements of an MSE abutment. Three MSE abutments supporting
a bridge with single span length of 48 m (160 ft) and three different footing sizes (2.17 m, 3.05 m, and 3.96 m),
respectively were analyzed for the lateral deformation, vertical settlement, earth pressure, inclusion stresses, and
bearing pressure underneath the footing. The analysis results show that, when founded on a sound subsoil or rock,
the UMSEW effectively supports the MSE bridge abutment.

Introduction

Major advantages of an MSE abutment with continuous rigid reinforced concrete facing include shortening of bridge
span, avoiding the problem of bridge bump, long-term pleasing aesthetic appearance, reduced wall dimension from
conventional cantilever walls, and cost saving, particularly in seismic environment. Case histories, scarce and
mostly with modular block facings, have shown that MSE abutments have performed well without excessive
settlement or lateral wall displacement. The Colorado DOT (CDOT) is among the pioneer states in adopting the
MSE abutment technology as demonstrated in the Meadows and Founders Bridge designed by Dr. Trever Wang,
Senior Bridge Engineer and Dr. H. C, Liu, Senior Physical Scientist and Head of Geotechnical Program. The
abutment was fully instrumented to monitor its performance during and post construction by Dr. Naser Abu-Hassan,
etc, (2001). Thus far, its performance has been excellent. The 2002 edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, and the 2001 FHWA publication No. FHWA HI-00-043 on “Load and Resistance Factor Design for
Highway Bridge Substructures,” were expanded to include the design and construction guidelines for MSE walls
and reinforced soil slopes. However, the Code is silent on the bridge load transfer from abutment footing to wall and
geosynthetic inclusions. No specific standard guidelines are available for the design of the MSE abutment on
UMSEW. Thus, the numerical analysis of MSE abutment performance will make available the technical information
bridge engineers need to carry out the design tasks. This article presents the results of 3-D nonlinear finite element
analyses of three different finite element models under loads as large as 200% of the critical factored LRFD loads
using NIKE-3D, a computer code developed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

MSE Bridge Abutment Configurations, FE Models, and Analyses

Figure 1 shows a section of the 48.8-m (160 ft, between the center of left and right abutment seats) single span
bridge with six prestressed concrete BT84 girders equally spaced at 2 m. Both ends of the bridge are support on an
MSE abutment supported by a UMSEW. It carries two lanes with the potential of adding a future lane. A Colorado
Type 7 reinforced concrete bridge rail is provided on each side of bridge deck. The abutment is supported on a
spread footing centrally located on top of and butted against the back face of a UMSEW. The abutment is supported
on a footing and shown in Figures 2 and 3. Three different MSE abutment configurations were analyzed, each with
the width of 2.13 m (7 ft), 3.05 m (10 ft), and 3.96 m (13 ft), respectively, and the length in the direction parallel to

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006
 the highway of 11.9 m (39 ft). Without increasing the span length due to the selection of MSE abutment and
matching the space economic of deep foundation all the concrete wall (girder seat) had the same typical toe
dimension of 0.91 m (3 ft). It is a grade-separation structure over a major highway and it needs to maintain a
minimum clearance of 5.03 m (16’-6”). The composite dead load includes 400 mm reinforced concrete deck with a
50-mm (2”) HBP and an additional 50-mm (2”) HBP for future repaving and Type 7 bridge rails. The most critical
live load is applied, a triangular live load on one lane and no load on the other. In the AASHTO design charts, the
total critical factored LRFD load for the combination of dead and live (HL93) loads is 6,950 kN. The load is
transferred from abutment to the footing, and then the top of UMSEW. Finite element analyses are performed at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6,950 kN, 10,425 kN and 13,900 kN, respectively, of the critical factored LRFD bridge load.

FIG. 1 Typical Section Of Bridge

FIG. 2a Dimensions of UMSEW FIG. 2b Dimensions of UMSEW in Plan

in Elevation

FIG. 3.a 3-D FE model for MSE abutment FIG. 3.b 3-D FE model for UMSEW

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006
 The analyses were performed in two stages: the first on the MSE abutment with Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) backfill
and elastic geosynthetic inclusions spaced at 0.3 m on very hard soil; the second on the UMSEW with two 8-m
parallel side wall panels and a 14.3-m front wall with elastic inclusions spaced at 0.26 m and R-O backfill. During
the second stage, the UMSEW-supported abutments with three different abutment footing widths were analyzed.
The widths of abutment footings were 2.13 m (7’), 3.05 m (10’), 3.96 m (13’). The analysis results are compared
with the results using FHWA Design Guidelines.
NIKE3D is a 3-D nonlinear finite element code with implicit solution algorithm for evaluating the responses of
structures under static and/or transient loads with geometric nonlinearity. Its contact-impact solution algorithm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

permits gaps, frictional sliding and mesh discontinuities along material interfaces. Its implicit time integration
formulation makes it most efficient for static and low rate dynamic problems like seismic response analyses.
NIKE3D multi-body contact solution algorithms are based on a master-slave approach with the penalty method,
where penalty “springs” are automatically generated between contact surfaces and the contact forces are computed
based on the depth of interpenetration. Among over two dozen constitutive models, in this study, the geosynthetic
inclusions, foundation soil, and concrete are assumed to be isotropic linear elastic and the backfill Ramberg-Osgood
material. The soil-inclusion and concrete-soil interfaces possess the Coulomb frictional characteristics. Solid
elements are used for concrete structures, backfill, and foundation soil, and shell elements the geosynthetic
inclusions. Table 1 summarizes the values of material parameters and sliding interface frictional coefficients.

Table 1 FEA Input Parameters

Elastic Material Model
Modulus of Poisson's
Material Density Elasticity, E Ratio,
[kg/m3] [MN/m2]

Foundation 2100 25,000 0.15

Concrete 2300 25,000 0.15
Inclusion 1030 290 0.4

Ramberg-Osgood Material Model

Reference Bulk Stress Stress Reference
Material Density Shear Stress Modulus, K Coeff. Exponent Shear Strain
[kg/m3] 2
y, [N/m ] [MN/m2] r y

Backfill 2000 11003 314 1.1 2.349 1.05E-4

Sliding Interface Frictional Coefficient

(friction (o) µ
angle)
Foundation-backfill 28 0.55
Concrete-foundation 28 19 0.35
Concrete-backfill 39 26 0.50
Inclusion-backfill 45 45 1.00

Response of UMSEW

The responses of interest included earth pressure thrust, location of earth pressure thrust, inclusion tensile stress,
bearing pressure, settlement, wall deformation and rotation. Table 2 summarizes these responses and their
comparisons to the responses calculated using FHWA design guidelines. The contour plots of these wall responses
were plotted and magnitudes correlated to the bridge loadings and abutment footing sizes. The contour plots (not
shown for space limitation) show that all responses are distributed symmetrically about the UMSEW centerline.

Due to the effect of the abutment footing load including critical LRFD bridge load, Figures 4 shows the effect of
abutment footing loads on the maximum earth pressure behind the UMSEW. It is maximum near the wall top, and it
decreases drastically with depth in the next 1.5 meters, and then the rate of change becomes insignificant. The corner

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006
 pressures are much higher than the pressure along the centerline. The earth pressure increases with the bridge load
and decrease with the footing width. Table 2 shows that the location of earth pressure thrust changes slightly with
the bridge loads, but is not affected by the abutment footing size.

Table 2 also shows that the maximum bearing pressure is located about 4m from the back face of the UMSEW
front wall and is 241, 249 and 249 kPa for the footing size of 2.13 m, 3.05 m, and to 3.96 m, respectively under
13,900 kN bridge loading. The footing settlement is 0.021 m, 0.015 m, and 0.014 m, for the footing size of 2.13 m,
3.05 m, and 3.95 m, respectively under 13,900 kN bridge load. The maximum settlement among all cases is 0.021
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

m, which is much smaller than the settlement limit of 0.24 m (0.005 times the simple bridge span length of 48.8 m)
per FHWA guidelines.

As shown in Table 2 and Figures 5, the maximum inclusion-UMSEW connection stresses are larger than the
maximum inclusion tensile stress beyond connections near the wall top. The maximum connection stresses decrease
faster than the maximum tensile stresses with depth. Thus, the connection stresses becoming smaller than the
maximum tensile stresses at a greater depth. The tensile stresses are largest for the smallest 2.13-m footing at 13,900
kN bridge loading. The static maximum inclusion tensile stress beyond connections is 1,430 kPa and is located at
0.3m from back face of UMSEW on the third inclusion layer beneath the 2.13 m (7’) footing under 13,900 kPa
bridge load. The maximum inclusion tensile stress occurs on the second inclusion layer and is 1,252 kPa and 1,262
kPa, respectively, for the 3.05 m (10’) and 3.96 m (13’) footings under the same load. In sum the maximum
inclusion stresses occur near the top of the UMSEW, the overall maximum inclusion tensile stresses usually occur at
the connections, and decrease drastically with the depth from the wall top and increases significantly as the bridge
load increases.

The wall lateral displacement and settlement are, in general, very small. At the bridge loading of 13,900 kN, the
maximum forward UMSEW displacement is 6.6 mm (0.26”) at 2.2 m from the bottom of all abutment footings (or
about the mid height of UMSEW), the maximum forward rotation of the front wall face of UMSEW is less than
1.6o, and the maximum abutment settlement with the 2.13-m footing is less than 15 mm. In sum, the forward wall
displacement and rotation, and the abutment settlement are all very small even at 13,900 kPa.

Table 2 Responses of UMSEW from FE Analyses and FHWA Design Guidelines

FHWA design guidelines NIKE3D model

Earth pressure thrust behind back face of UMSE front wall, kN/m
Width of Loading case Loading case
abutment Bridge loads Bridge loads
footing 100% 150% 200% 100% 150% 200%
2.13m (7') 382 495 608 877 1085 1356
3.05m (10') 330 419 506 845 1085 1328
3.96m (13') 298 371 443 843 1059 1259

The location of the earth pressure thrust from bottom of leveling pad, m
2.13m (7') 1.85 1.94 1.99 2.77 2.92 2.94
3.05m (10') 1.85 1.94 1.99 2.8 2.92 2.95
3.96m (13') 1.85 1.94 1.99 2.8 2.9 2.96

Maximum bearing pressure at bottom of reinforced soil mass (UMSEW), kPa

2.13m (7') 302 384 469 181 215 241
3.05m (10') 302 384 469 185 215 249
3.96m (13') 302 384 469 189 221 249

Maximum inclusion tensile stress (UMSEW), kPa

2.13m (7') 25149 33838 42486 583 868 1488
3.05m (10') 20372 26753 33093 511 868 1238
3.96m (13') 17650 22718 27746 529 854 1264

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006
 Maxim um earth pressure behind back Max. Earth Pressure at BK of UMSE
face of UMSEW front w all front wall with 2.13m width abut.
footing and 200% Bridge loadings
5.0

4.0
4.0

MSE wall height, m

3.0 3.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
1.E+05 3.E+05 5.E+05 7.E+05 0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05
Ear t h Pressure in kPa Earth Pressure in kPa

2.13m(7') 3.05m(10') 3.96m(13') left corner middle right corner

Max. Earth Pressure at BK of UMSE

Max. Earth Pressure at BK of UMSE
front wall with 3.05m width abut.
front wall with 3.96m width abut.
footing and 200% Bridge loadings footing and 200% Bridge loadings
MSE wall height, m

4
4
3
MSE wall height, m

3
2
1 2

0 1
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05 1.E+06
Earth Pressure in kPa 0
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05 1.E+06
Earth Pressure in kPa
left corner middle right corner left corner middle right corner

FIG. 4 Maximum Earth Pressure Behind Back Face Of UMSEW Front Wall

Max. longitudinal inclusion stress - Max. longitudinal inclusion connection

2.13m w idth abut. footing stress - 2.13m width abut. footing

4
4
3
MSE wall height, m

3
2
2
1 1
0 0
0.0E+00 4.0E+02 8.0E+02 1.2E+03 1.6E+03 0.0E+00 4.0E+02 8.0E+02 1.2E+03 1.6E+03
inclusion Stress (longit udinal) in kPa longitudinal inclusion Stress in kPa

6950 kN 10425 kN 13900 kN 6950 kN 10425 kN 13900 kN

FIG. 5 Maximum Inclusion Tensile Stresses and Connection Stresses

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006
 Responses from NIKE3D Analyses and FHWA Design Guidelines

Table 2 summarizes the comparison between the finite element analysis results of UMSEW wall performance
parameters and the corresponding parameter values calculated following FHWA design guidelines. The findings are:
the finite element analysis yielded higher earth pressure at the back of UMSEW, higher point of application for
pressure thrust, smaller bearing pressure along the footing base, and much smaller inclusion tensile stresses. The
overall wall performance is excellent with small lateral displacement, settlement, and rotation. Thus, it can be
concluded that the UMSEW greatly enhances the load carrying capacity of an MSE bridge abutment.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 09/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Summary and Conclusions

This article reports the results of the study on the response of UMSEW as abutment supporting structure under the
superstructure dead load of a single span bridge with the span length of 48.8 m and AASHTO LRFD HL93 standard
live load. It study examines the effect of the size of abutment footing and load magnitude on the UMSEW responses
and the difference between the earth pressure thrust, the point of application of the thrust, bearing pressure and
inclusion tensile stress calculated using finite element analyses and following the FHWA design guidelines. The
major findings are briefed as follows:

• Finite element analysis results show:

o At the same footing size, an increasing bridge load gives higher earth pressure, settlement, bearing
pressure, and inclusion tensile stress.
o At the same bridge load, the earth pressure on the back of UMSEW and the inclusion tensile stress
both decrease with increasing abutment footing size and the depth from the footing base.
o The maximum inclusion connection stress occurs at the depth of maximum wall displacement.
o At the same bridge load, the size of footing affects minimally the magnitude of settlement.
o Wall-inclusion connections significantly affect the UMSEW responses, particular the lateral wall
displacement, and inclusion tensile stress distribution.
o UMSEW serves as an effective support for MSE bridge abutments.
• The earth pressure thrust and its point of application are higher, the bearing pressure under the abutment
footing base is smaller, and the inclusion tensile stress is much smaller than those evaluated following the
FHWA Design Guidelines. Further investigation is needed to verify the above findings.

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2000). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
2nd edition. Washington, DC.
Elias, V., B. Christopher, and Berg, R.R. (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA Report No. FHWA-NHI-00-043, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC.
Koerner, R. M. (1986) Designing with Geosynthetics. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Puso, Michael (2001). NIKE3D: A Nonlinear, Implicit, Three-dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and
Structural Mechanics – User’s Manual. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Rainsberger, R., and Eggleston , T. (1999). TRUEGRID: A Multi-block, Structured Mesh Generator for Finite
Element Simulation Codes – User’s Manual. XYZ Scientific Applications Inc., Livermore, California.
Ruoff, A. L. (1972) Introduction to materials science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Speck, D. E., and Dovey , D. J. (1996). GRIZ: Finite Element Analysis Results Visualization for Unstructured Grids
– User’s Manual. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Wu, J. T.H., Ketchart, K., and Adams , M. (2001). GRS Bridge Piers and Abutment. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-
00-038, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC.

Copyright ASCE 2006 GeoCongress 2006

GeoCongress 2006