~' HIGHWAYS MPR acency Performance of the two integral bridges forming the A62 Manchester Road Overbridge by KJ Barker and D R Carder TRL Report 436‘The Transport Research Laboratory is the largest and most comprehensive centre for the study of surface land transport in the United Kingdom. TRL provides research-based technical assistance to help set standards in all aspects of surface transport, improve safety and the environment, and encourage good transport practice for the benefit of both the public and private sectors, and hence ultimately for society as a whole. ‘As a national transport research laboratory, TRL operates world-wide and has developed close working links with many other international transport centres, TRL is a non-profit distributing company whose customers include central government, local and regional authorities, consultants, industry (construction, infrastructure owners, operators, automotive), foreign governments and international aid agencies. TRL employs over 500 people, including 380 technical specialists, many with higher degrees and Doctorates. Facilities include a state-of-the-art driving simulator, various indoor impact test facilities, a 3.8 km test track, a separate self-contained road network, a structures hall, an Intelligent ‘Transport Systems Centre, an acoustics room and many other laboratories. Numerous mobile off-site test facilities, data collection devices and specialised vehicles are also employed to support research, consultaney and advice. ‘The Laboratory's primary objective is to work closely with its customers to carry out commissioned research, investigations, studies and tests to the highest levels of quality, reliability and impartiality. ‘TRL carries out its work in such a Way as to ensure that customers receive results that not only meet the project specification or requirement but are also geared to rapid and effect e implementation. ‘Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies “Transport Research Foundation (a company lined by guarantee) trading as Tanspot Research Laboratory Registered in England Number 3011746. TRL. Limited. Registered in England, Number 3142272, Registered Otfice: Oi Wokingham Rond, Crowthorne, Bertie. RGAS 6AU)TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY Gr L Performance of the two integral bridges forming the A62 Manchester Road Overbridge Prepared for Quality Services, Civil Engineering, Highways Agency K J Barker and D R Carder TRL REPORT 436First Published 2000 ISSN 0968-4107 (Copyright Transport Research Laboratory 2000. ‘This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory, under/as part of a Contract placed by the Highways Agency. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Agency. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing ‘waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process. ‘Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies ‘Transport Research Foundation (a company limited by guarance) trading as Transport Research Laboratory. Registered in England, Number 3011746 TRL Limited, Registered in England, Number 3142272. Registered Offices: Od Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Beskshire, RGAS GAU.CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduetion 3 2 Location and description of the bridge 3 3 Soil properties 3 3.1 In situ ground 3 3.2 Backfill 3 4 Construction sequence 3 5 Instrumentation 6 5.1. Measurement of lateral movement of the deck and abutments 7 5.2 Measurement of strains in the abutments 9 5.3 Measurement of deck strains and temperatures 9 5.4 Measurement of earth pressure acting on the abutments 9 6 Performance of Phase 1 bridge 10 6.1 Lateral movement of the deck and abutments 10 6.2 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the north abutment u 6.3 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the deck 11 6.4 Lateral stresses acting on the north abutment 7 7 Performance of Phase 2 bridge 20 7.1 Lateral movement of the deck and abutments 2 7.2 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the north abutment 22 7.3 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the deck 22 7.4 Lateral stresses acting on the north abutment 26 8 Conclusions 26 9 Acknowledgements 29 10 References 29 Appendix A: Seasonal monitoring results for Phase 1 30 Appendix B: Seasonal monitoring results for Phase 2 34 Abstract 38 Related publications 38ivExecutive Summary BA42 (The Design of Integral Bridges) gives advice on the design pressures relevant to three main classes of integral abutment, ie. shallow height, fall height portal frames and embedded wall abutments. Field measurements on a shallow height abutment have been previously reported, however few data are available on the performance of full height abutments. This study reports on the performance of ‘wo full height integral bridges of about 40m span over the ‘Manchester Outer Ring Road. One of the bridges (Phase 2) ‘was constructed with contiguous bored pile abutments founded in glacial tll. The other bridge (Phase 1) was a more conventional portal frame structure with the abutments retaining granular backfill Instrumentation was installed on both bridges to ‘measure movements of the abutments and changes in deck length, wall and deck loads and bending moments, deck temperatures and lateral earth pressures acting on the abutments. This report describes the measurements during construction and over the first two years in service. “Measurements indicated thatthe coefficients of thermal expansion of the deck were 9.6x10°°C and 9.25x10°*C. for Phase 1 and Phase 2 bridges respectively. These values ‘were consistent with that expected when limestone aggregates are used in concrete (BD37, DMRB 1.3). Axial deck loads during construction and due to deck ‘temperature changes were higher with the stiffer reinforced ‘concrete abutments than with the bored pile abutments. In the design of integral abutments and where the deck is cast in place, it would appear prudent to allow for the total bridge dead load being equally shared between the supports as the assumption of simply supported spans may not be appropriate. ‘The findings from this project are expected to be of, value in future updates of BA42 (DMRB 1.3)1 Introduction Integral bridge abutments are attracting increasing interest in the UK following the issue of BDS7 (DMRB 1.3) encouraging their use. In principle itis recommended that all bridges of up to 60m length and skews not exceeding 30° have continuous decks that are integral with their abutments. This policy is expected to reduce maintenance costs compared with those of conventional jointed bridges where there isa risk of de-icing salts penetrating the deck and substructure resulting in durability problems. However, with integral bridges, design uncertainties exist because seasonal and diurnal thermal expansion of the deck causes cyclic movements of the abutments which ‘may result in high earth pressures acting on the abutment. ‘These earth pressures may also increase with time because of the effect of ‘strain ratcheting’ induced by many cycles of thermal movement (Broms and Ingleson, 1972; England and Dunstan, 1994; Card and Carder, 1993). BA42 (DMRB 1.3) gives advice on the design pressures relevant to three main classes of integral abutment, ie. shallow height, full height portal frames and embedded wall abutments. This design advice on pressures was largely based on the findings of Springman et al (1996), who undertook a series of centrifuge and analytical studies, and ‘on the results ofa field study on a shallow abutment of an integral bridge on the M74 reported by Darley et al (1996) More recently the opportunity has arisen to complement the later field study with performance measurements on the full height abutments of the twin decks of 40m long integral bridges under construction to carry the A62 over the M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road (Denton to ‘Middleton). Originally both bridges were designed with contiguous bored pile abutments and a continuous reinforced concrete deck. However problems with one of the bridges necessitated remedial works which effectively changed the design to that of a conventional portal frame structure. Because of this change it became possible to compare the performance of two integral bridges with similar decks but with abutments of different stiffnesses, in cone case retaining granular backfill and in the other the in sina glacial til. Instrumentation was installed on both bridges to measure movements of the abutments and changes in deck length, wall and deck loads and bending moments, deck ‘temperatures and lateral earth pressures acting on the abutments. This report describes the measurements during construction and over the first two years in service. 2 Location and description of the bridge ‘The Manchester Road Overbridge carries the A62 over the section of the M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road which is being constructed under Contract 2 (Medlock to Irk - Advanced Side Roads). Due to construction phasing, the scheme was constructed as two separate bridges (Phases 1 and 2) side by side with a continuous reinforced concrete deck of 1.7m thickness being used in each case. In addition to the continuous deck, the original design included integral abutments and a central pier formed by contiguous bored piles constructed under bentonite and founded in glacial till. As discussed further in Section 4, problems with the bored piling for Phase 1 (the south bridge) necessitated remedial works which effectively changed the design to that of a conventional portal frame structure with reinforced concrete abutments retaining granular backfill. Construction of Phase 2 (the north bridge) employed integral bored pile abutments as originally planned. Sections through the Phase 1 and 2 bridges giving the spans of each deck and further details of construction are shown in Figure 1. The bridges were designed for HA loading and for HA loading combined with 45 units of HB loading (BD37, DMRB 1.3). 3 Soil properties 3.1 In situ ground At the site, the ground conditions are glacial till (Boulder Clay) overlying moderately strong sandstone at about 23m depth. The nature of the till is highly variable although itis predominantly a firm to stiff brown sandy or silty clay. ‘Undrained shear strengths on 100mm diameter triaxial specimens and Atterberg limits obtained from a TRL borehole in the instrumented area are plotted against depth in Figure 2. Generally there was poor correlation between strength and depth, with plasticity indices ranging from 10% to 26%. Consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure ‘measurement were carried out on 38mm diameter specimens from 4.3m and 7.1m depth. Effective stress strength parameters of c'=0 and '=32.5° were determined at 4.3m depth and c'=9kN/m? and 4'=25.5° at 7.1m depth. 3.2 Backfill ‘The backfill used against the structure for the remedial works during Phase 1 construction and for the 2.5m deep reinforced earth fill behind each abutment complied with Class P requirements in Table 6/1 of the Specification for Highway Works (MCHW1). The source of the fill was Bardon Highmoor Quarry. An investigation of the particle size distribution showed that 100% by mass passed the 37.5mm sieve and only 12% passed the 63 micron sieve. Nuclear density gauge tess on the compacted backfill gave an average dry density of 2.04Mg/m? and moisture content of 8.1%. Determination of strength by direct shear using a 300mm shearbox apparatus gave effective angles of internal friction ¢',., of 42° and 44) Of 37° at maximum travel of the machine, 4 Construction sequence ‘The construction sequence for Phase 1 (the south bridge) is summarised in Table 1 and commenced with the installation of contiguous bored piles for the two abutments and the central pier. The piles for the abutments, ‘were 1200mm in diameter and installed at 1500mm centres with pile lengths in the instrumented area of 29.4m. Pileb= 10.099» — peg 24.7 "200mm piles at} 1500mm wide insty re =~ ‘props at 6900mm centres (2) Phase 1 (south bridge) 11500mm pites at 820mm centres; (©) Phase 2 (north bridge) Figure 1 A62 Manchester Road Overbridge (sections) diameters for the central pier were 750mm and these piles were installed at 1030mm centres. The pile boreholes were rotary augered using a short length of casing at the top and bentonite slurry to provide temporary ground suppor. After the reinforcing cage had been lowered into position, concrete was tremied to the bottom of the hole and the displaced bentonite returned to storage. (On completion of the piling, the pile tops were trimmed and the formwork placed ready for deck construction. The deck consisted of 1.7m thick reinforced concrete which ‘was cast as a continuous length, ie. with no construction joints. Subsequent to deck construction for Phase 1, the formwork was removed and bulk excavation then took place beneath the deck. On exposure of the front face of the piles, many of them were found to be defective and remedial works were therefore necessary. ‘An outline section showing the remediall measures is given in Figure 3. A system of low level props comprising 1.5m wide in situ reinforced concrete slabs at 6m centres acting on walings cast against the piles was installed to censure base stability of the abutment. A reinforced concrete facing of thickness 0.4m was then cast on the road face of 4 the ples and a facing of 0.3m thickness on the earth face. ‘The final design was therefore that of a reinforced concrete ‘portal frame structure with the abutments propped at low level. As shown in Figure 3, infill concrete was placed in the ‘excavation at depth on the retained side of the wall. ‘Imported granular fill (see Section 3.2) was then used to ‘complete the backfilling with the uppermost 2.5m being of reinforced earth construction employing high adherence steel reinforcing strips and Terratre facing. The reinforced earth construction was part of the original design and intended to prevent settlement of the pavement construction for the bridge approaches. Drainage behind the abutments ‘was ensured using a permeable backing of hollow porous concrete blocks. Where the reinforced earth met the abutment a 25mm layer of Aerofill joint filler was additionally used as shown in Figure 3. Because of the problems with the Phase 1 construction, ‘modifications were made to the pile design for the abutments of Phase 2, Pile diameters were increased to 1500mm and the distance between pile centres to 1820mm, also the pile boreholes were cased to between ‘6m and 8m depth. Details of the construction sequence are2 Liguia tit f@ Moisture content 2 Plastic limit Depth (m) Depth (rm) 18 15 100mm aiameter triaxial specimens 0 8 10 15 20 25 9 35 40 45 50 ° Moisture content (%) 0 100 +180 +~—200~+~«250~—-900 +350 LUndtained shear strength (kN/m#) Figure 2 Properties of the glacial till Table 1 Instrumentation and construction schedule for Phase 1 Instrumentation ate installed (day number) Construction stage 1 aly 1995 (0) Pie strain gauges B uly 1995 (7) 12 July 1995 (11) Instrumente pile installed Inclinometer tubes 28 Now 1995 (150) Deck strain gaugesthermocouples 7 Dec 1995 (185) Geomensor sockets 8 Dec 1995 (160) 12 Dee 1995 (164) Deck cast, Geomensor pillar 26 March 1996 (269) 17 May 1996 G21) 25 October 1996 (482) 19 Dec 1996 (537) 28 January 1997 (577) 19 March 1997 (627), Pressure cells 18 April 1997 (657) 24 May 1997 (683) 14 June 1997 (714) Rewsined ground excavated to expose faulty piles ‘Bulk excavation completed below deck [Excavation behind both abutments to prop level {Insta concrete props below carriageway completed ‘Cast insu facing o piles completed Backfilng completed behind north abutment Blacktop laid Road opened to traffic11700mnm thick re dock (strain gauged) Inctinometer| X 25mm thick Aerofll layer Granular backfl Init concrete 120mm diameter ples at 1500mm centres (strain gauges) Figure 3 Section showing instrumentation of Phase 1 abutment shown in Table 2. After pile installation, construction of the deck followed the same procedure as for Phase 1. Pile condition was found to be good on subsequent bulk excavation below the deck and work was therefore able to ‘commence immediately on constructing the reinforced earth fill to 2.5m depth over the in situ glacial till on the retained side of the abutments. Construction details atthe top of the abutment were similar to those shown in Figure 3 and incorporated drainage blocks and Aerofill joint filler. ‘The bridges for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Plate 1) were opened to traffic in June 1997 and in September 1997 respectively. 5 Instrumentation Instrumentation on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 bridges was essentially similar although minor differences occurred as necessitated by the remedial works on the Phase 1 abutments. Plan views of the deck instrumentation are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively. The sequences of instrument installation during construction of the two bridges are given in Tables 1 and 2. ‘The instrumentation was designed to monitor the lateral ‘movement of the deck and abutments; the lateral earth pressures acting on, and the bending moment developed in, the abutments; and the deck strains and temperatures.‘Table 2 Instrumentation and construction schedule for Phase 2 Instrumentation Date installed (day number) Constrction stage Pie sain gauges ‘5 February 1997 (585) 6 February 1997 (586) 24 March 1997 (632) Inctinometer tube 17 Apa 1997 (656) Deck strain gaugesthermocoaples 29 Ape 1997 (668) 30 April 1997 (668) Inclinometer tube 8 May 1997 (677) Pressure ells 9 May 1997 (678) Geomensor sockets 19 May 1997 (688) 3 June 1997 703) 7 August 1997 (768) 9 Sepe 1997 (801) 27 Sept 1987 819) Pile cage installed, coneree poured Excavation completed to 3m below deck soffit level prior to instalation of falsework Deck cast Reinforced eanh fill compleed behind norh abutment Bulk excavation competed below deck Blacktop laid ‘Road opened to tafe Plate 1 View of the near completed bridge 5.1 Measurement of lateral movement of the deck and abutments ‘During installation of the bored piles, four steel tubes of nominally 100mm diameter were attached vertically to the reinforcing cages prior to pouring the concrete of the piles. ‘These tubes were positioned in piles 29 and 69 of the south and north abutments of Phase 1 and in piles 9 and 25 of the south and north abutments of Phase 2. After pile installation, inclinometer access tubes (II to 14) were grouted into the steel tubes using a cement grout containing a non-shrink additive, At the appropriate stage of construction the inclinometer tubes were extended vertically through the deck up to the surface of the new carriageway where they ‘were protected by small manhole covers. Although the inclinometer tubes extended to within about 0.5m of the pile toes (je. depths of between 25m and 29m) and base fixity of the inclinometer tubes was a reasonable assumption, machined stainless stee] sockets for electronic distance measurements were installed at the top of each inclinometer tube to verify this assumption. ‘The electronic distance measurements were taken using a high precision Geomensor system which is capable of measuring changes in length to better than +0.5mm over the ranges employed. Measurements were also taken on Geomensor sockets installed over both the central piers, This enabled changes in span of the south and north sides of both bridge decks to be calculated and correlated with deck temperature changes.eit @lo Kew ‘Figure 4 Plan view of Phase 1 deck showing instrument locations © Strain gauged pile Pair of deck strain gauges Profile of thermocouples Inctinometer Geomencor target g "North abutment Figure § Plan view of Phase 2 deck showing instrument locations5.2 Measurement of strains in the abutments ‘Thirty pairs of vibrating wire embedment strain gauges were wired to the vertical reinforcing bars so that one gauge of each pair was positioned at the back and one towards the front of the reinforcing cage of piles 66 and 26 in the north abutments of Phases 1 and 2 respectively. Plate 2 shows the strain gauges being installed on one of the bored pile reinforcing cages. The interval of depth between pairs of gauges was approximately Im over the upper 11m of each pile and then progressively increased to a maximum spacing of 4m towards the pile toe. ‘Measured axial strains in the piles were converted to loads by multiplying by the modulus (E) and the cross- sectional area (A) per metre run of the abutment. For the Phase 1 abutment appropriate correction was made to allow for the concrete facings which were part of the remedial works. An E value of 31 x 10° kN/m? was used for the pile concrete which had a 28 day strength of 40N/mm? (Table 3 of BS5400: Part 4: 1990). Bending moments per metre run of the abutment were determined from pile bending strains based on an equivalent flexural rigidity (ED of 3.8 x 10° kN/m?, assuming thatthe concrete would remain uncracked at the small strain levels involved and making allowance for the contiguous nature of the piles (ie. 1500mm diameter pes at 1820mm centres). In the case of Phase I piles, where a concrete facing was added to both sides of the piles as part ofthe remedial works, the equivalent flexural rigidity increased to 1.7 x 10° kN? per ‘metre run of the abutment. 5.3 Measurement of deck strains and temperatures ‘Three pairs of vibrating wire embedment strain gauges ‘were attached at two locations on the reinforcing cages for the decks of both Phases 1 and 2. The pairs of gauges were positioned at 2m, Sm and 10m from the north abutment in all cases. One gauge of each pair was fixed to the top reinforcing steel and one to the bottom steel, thus enabling, both axial and bending strains to be determined. ‘Axial loads were determined for the 170mm thick reinforced concrete deck assuming a modulus (E) of 31 x 10° N/m? for the concrete which had a 28 day strength of 40N/mm? (Table 3 of BS5400: Part 4: 1990). Bending moments were determined using a second moment of area (1) of 0.41m* Deck temperatures were established both from thermistors incorporated in the arrays of strain gauges described above and also from two profiles of ‘thermocouples installed in each deck. Each profile ‘comprised six thermocouples at depths of 40mm, 100mm, 250mm, 500mm, 900mm and 1450mm below the top of the concrete deck. One profile was located at 2m and the ‘other at 10m from the north abutment. ‘5.4 Measurement of earth pressure acting on the abutments ‘The initial intention had been to measure lateral pressures in the in situ clay behind the bored pile wall for Phase 1. However, because of the necessity for remedial works, lateral pressures on the abutment during backfilling were ‘measured instead. For this purpose, nine vibrating wire Plate 2 Installation of strain gauges on the bored pile reinforcing cagepressure cells were installed in recesses cast into the retained face of the abutment. The diameter of the active face of each cell was 180mm and the cells were oil filled ‘The pressure in the oil was measured by a vibrating wire transducer connected to the cel ‘The locations ofthe cells are shown in Figure 3 for the abutment of Phase 1. As pressures develop near the top of the abutment due to thermal expansion of the deck, this level was of particular importance. Four cells were placed at the "uppermost location behind the 25mm thick Aerofill layer to ‘monitor pressures from the 2.5m deep reinforced earth fill. ‘The remaining five cells measured backfill pressures directly ‘with two cells being placed at the next depth and one at each of the lower depths. During backfilling behind the abutment, fill material passing a 6.3mm sieve was compacted by hand against the faces ofthese cells to prevent damage to the diaphragm from coarser particles. The hand compacted ‘material was Separated from the backfill by a permeable ‘geotextile membrane to prevent fines being washed out and a ‘void forming over the cell face. Only a limited investigation of the lateral pressures acting on the bored pile abutment of Phase 2 was possible. Four pressure cells were again placed to monitor pressures from the reinforced earth backfill ina si that described above for Phase 1. 6 Performance of Phase 1 bridge “Monitoring of instrumentation during construction took place at regular intervals and the changes associated with the various construction activities (Table 1) were identified. On completion of construction, seasonal monitoring of performance commenced. From day 888 the instrument cables were installed in cabinets and results from electrical and vibrating wire instruments were then computer logged. The changes from manual to logged data are apparent in some of the time plots which follow. Graphs of data during construction and the first winter in service are presented in the main body of the text. For convenience similar graphs of results during seasonal ‘monitoring during the following year in service are presented in Appendix A. 6.1 Lateral movement of the deck and abutments ‘Surveys of the inclinometer tubes (11 and 12) in the abutments for Phase 1 were carried out at regular intervals during construction to establish lateral movement profiles. Because of the complicated nature of the remedial works, considerable variation in the results was obtained. Figure 6 shows the extremes of lateral movement measured on both ° ; 7 ema TEs En (Day 573) (Day 444) (Day 444) (Day 689) E E 3 : 8 = 3 5 Bal bal € € 3 8 al « sever nr co PoE Se Sse or yt cece Latoral movement (mmm) (@) South abutment (11) Lateral movernent (mm) (b) Noh abutment (I2) Figure 6 Extremes of lateral movement measured during construction (Phase 1) 10abutments during this period. Generally, atthe top of the abutments, the difference between the extremes of movement was about 8mm. Excavation on both sides of the abutments for the remedial works meant that significant movement occurred over at least the upper 15m of each abutment and with the south abutment to a greater depth as shown in Figure 6. ‘The lateral movements measured on both abutments during the seasonal monitoring are shown in Figure Al of Appendix A. At the top of the abutments, the difference between the extremes of movement was about 2mm for the south abutment (11) and about 3mm for the north abutment (12). Figure 7c compares the surface movements of the deck determined from the inclinometer tubes in the abutments assuming base fixity with those measured from a remote pillar using the Geomensor electronic distance measuring system. Generally movements measured using the two techniques were in close agreement. It must be noted however that the south and north abutments did not move identically whilst the remedial works were underway. Some lateral movement ( 4mm) of the bridge towards the north occurred as is confirmed by the Geomensor ‘measurements at the central pier position (Figure 7b). ‘The mean deck temperatures measured using the thermocouple profiles are also shown in Figure 7a. The underlying trends of movement developed by thermal ‘expansion and contraction ofthe bridge deck were to some extent masked by construction effects until the bridge was nearing completion. The results in Figure 8 are for the period of seasonal monitoring following completion of the blacktop over the bridge. A correlation was obtained between the lateral movement ofthe top of the abutments measured by inclinometer and the mean deck temperature. ‘The slopes of the lines in Figure 8b used in conjunction with the respective span between the abutment and central pier gave equivalent coefficients of thermal expansion of the deck of 9.59%10°RC and 9.58x10°PC for the south (11) and north abutment (12) respectively. Changes in deck span over the same period were measured using the Geomensor and the data in Figure 8a give an equivalent coefficient of thermal expansion of the deck of 8.43x10°PC. These values were lower than the 12x10*AC that would normally be encountered for reinforced concrete. However as the aggregate used in the concrete was carboniferous limestone (from Tunstcad Quarry, Buxton), a lower coefficient of about 9x10°PC would be expected (BD37, DMB 1.3). 6.2 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the north abutment Figure 9 shows the axial loads measured using strain gauges at various depths in the north abutment of Phase 1 At this stage, the loads per metre run of the abutment were calculated from strains using the cross-sectional area of the piles rather than the increased area after the remedial works. Shortly after the deck was cast, axial loads in the wall increased to about 500kN/m which corresponded with the value calculated from the dead load of the deck assuming each span was simply supported between the central pier and abutment. Some increase in dead load from this calculated value would however be expected because of the integral nature of the bridge. Loads increased and were generally between 500 and 1000kN/m ‘on removal of the formwork supporting the deck and ‘excavation on both sides of the abutment for the remedial works. A sharp increase in the apparent axial load occurred around day 627 (March 1997) when the conerete facings were cast onto the piles. This additional compressive load ‘was probably induced by shrinkage as the concrete of the facings cured. Because of this effect, a new datum for the strain gauges in the abutment was established at day 647 after completion of the remedial works and before the major part ofthe backfilling had taken place. From this time the revised cross-sectional area and second moment of area ‘were used in calculating the axial loads and bending ‘moments in the abutment. The subsequent variation of Toads and moments with time and temperature is shown in Figure 10 and Figure A2 of Appendix A. Generally over the period from day 887 to day 938 (Figure 10) and day 936 to day 1294 (Figure A2) when logged data were available, the vertical axial loads in the abutment were reasonably stable with time and temperature. However, as ‘would be anticipated, bending moments in the abutment varied as changes in temperature caused deck expansion and contraction. These changes were more significant at the upper gauge locations as shown in Figure 11 for eight arbitrary dates. The data in Figure 11 have been calculated by adding the bending moment profile immediately prior to casting the concrete facing to changes from the new datum established on day 647. In this way an assessment could be ‘made of the overall development of bending moment which ignored the shrinkage effects asthe concrete of the facing ccured. A negative bending moment was observed at the top of the abutment due to the moment from the deck dead load ‘being transferred to the integral abutment. 6.3 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the deck The variation of axial loads and bending moments ‘measured using embedment strain gauges in the deck with time and temperature is shown in Figure 12 and Figure A3 of Appendix A. In both the axial load and bending moment ceases a sharp increase occurred duc tothe rise in surface temperature of the deck when the blacktop was laid, although values soon reverted when the deck cooled, ‘Subsequent to completion of construction, both axial loads and bending moments showed a strong dependence on deck temperature as would be expected. Although two sets of gauges were installed at distances of 2m, Sm and 10m from the abutment, faults occurred on the gauges at Sm 50 that the readings were not available at this distance from the abutment. Evaluation of the likely shrinkage and creep deformation of the 1.7m thick concrete deck was carried out following the procedure given in Appendix C of BSS400: Part 4 (1990). Over the period of monitoring covered by the results in Figure 12 and Figure A3, calculated upper bounds of | shrinkage and creep may have accounted for 4% and 10% respectively of the measured loads. uTemperature (©) Lateral movement (nn) Lateral movement (em) 2 18 10 i AN. ‘300 "1000 ay number (a) Moan deck temperature (thermocouples) 1200 Movement towards north -ve i ‘@ Geomensor G2 ease, a “400 600 ‘800 1000) Day number (©) Movornent at central pier 7200 ‘At south abutment: © Incinomoter It © Goomensor Gt ‘Atnorth abutment:- © Inctinometor 12 A Geomensor G3 Movement towards centre ve = “400 000 200 1000 “200 Day eumber {(€) Movement at abutments ‘Figure 7 Lateral movements at deck level (Phase 1)Change in deck length (mm) Lateral movernent (ren) ‘Geomensor (61-63) eS ‘Slope = 0.343 mm?C, regression covtcient = 0.76 ° ° 5 10 15 20 25 Deck temperature (°C) 2) Deck span 8 12 Indinometer tube, ] Slope = 0.182 m/c, rogression | 5 ale coeficient = 0.86 _ ab te 26 . ° ab Tt elnometer ube Slope = 0.208 minv®C, rogrssion a coatfciont= 0.82 al aa L aso ft of incinometor {ube assumed “ ° 5 0 18 20 25 Deck temperature (°C) ) Abutment movernents Figure 8 Variation in lateral movements with deck temperature (Phase 1) B4 2000 f- ‘Axial load (kN/m) 1000 | Calculates dead load tor simply ‘supported deck Depth of gauges below pile top tm Sm 6m 7m 10m —e- + 0 --0- 4 Retained ground excavated for remedial works Concrete facings cast on ples (effect of concrete shrinkage) 1 L L L 1000 200 400 600 800 Day number Figure 9 Variation of axial load in the north abutment (Phase 1) 1000Blacktop li 25 Fas opened ‘crango of sale > forlogged data = Upper themisors = » Lower tarmistors 8 8 e 1s a No data 5 ST . | Pow Aaprn, ° 600 700 800860. 870 880 890 ‘900 910 920 930 940 950 Day number (2) Mean deck temperature rom thormitors Gauge fare Bactop ls E 108° ° FRoad opened —*\__»- Change of seale ‘Gauge depth:- = 200 see a mn ns eee Z 600 ! = 400 ‘ B 200 H ‘ Bo m. 2 200 ' em & 00 i Nodata 7m 3 — & -c00 ' 209, cad 700 80086089 Bod— B90 B00 B10 —3B0 B40 —"BH Bo Day number (©) Bending moment 4000 : ‘3000 Gauge falure Change of scale Gauge dopth:- = Road opened E 2000] pacaop nt Fa a © s000 LP Soo " Sm 3 H 2 -1000 i { i, -2000 ‘4 Nodata ™ — -3009, Ca a a a a a Day numer (©) Aa ion ‘Figure 10 Variations in abutment loads and moments with temperature relative to new datum on day 647 (Phase 1) 1sEe —— Top of deck 1 Day 9205 t Dock tomp. 3.7°C Hl Day 925.5 \ Deck temp. 73°C | payoes Deck temp. 5.1°C ' Day 1055 j Dock tmp 21.8% t Day 1136 ' Deck mp, 20.0% 105 | Day 1210 | Deck temp. 12.8°C Day 1255 eek tom. 1.4°C. joo ° Day 1201 Deck tmp. 24°C |. -— Ground tevel ‘800 (m) a —Level of prop os ‘4ve moment is. ‘compression of soll face po Leta pp -1000 800-600 400 200 0 «= 200400 600800 Bending moment (kNimvm) Figure 11 Variation of wall bending moment with depth (Phase 1) 16Blacktop laid Blacktop laid} Change of seale 5 for logged data [ — Upper thermistors | é Lower thermistor | € 3 zg i — 200 310 320 350 M0 350 Day number (@) Mean deck temperature from thermistors [Change of scale for logged data Distance from abutment 10m 2m 2m 200300 400” 500600700 600 600 200 o10 20 330 0 250 Day number (©) Bending moment 10000 . Blecepiaid | ___ change of scale ioe {for logged data Distance from zg : sbutment & ooo ; oa © 4000 om 2 2000 ° "200 900 400 500 600 700 600 600 900 310 220) 20 340 350 Day eumbor (©) Axa iad Figure 12 Variations in deck loads and moments with temperature (Phase 1) ‘The results in Figure 13 indicate the variation of axial load and bending moment with temperature for the post- construction period. Figure 13a demonstrates that axial load increases fairly linearly with deck temperature at a mean rate of 144kN/m/C. If the abutments of the bridge were fully constrained and assuming the measured coefficient of thermal expansion (from Section 6.1) together with the same deck modulus as used for the load calculations, a load increase of 50SkN/m/*C would be anticipated. However as movement of the abutments ‘occurs, these findings confirm that only a minor part of the expansive load is taken by the deck itself. The sharing of load between the deck, abutments and backfill will depend on the relative stiffnesses of each. The results for the reinforced concrete abutment of Phase 1 generally showed ‘much higher mean deck loads and a higher thermal dependence than those for the bored pile abutments of Phase 2 (Section 7.3): this was accounted for by the increased flexural stiffness ofthe reinforced concrete abutment and the different method of construction. Figure 13b shows a best fit regression of bending moment against deck temperature. The slope of -1SkNmvmAC ‘measured at 10m from the abutment indicates that a small hogging moment develops as the deck expands thermally. ‘At 2m from the abutment, bending moment reversal occurs with a measured slope of +11kNm/mAC, ie. sagging. 64 Lateral stresses acting on the north abutment ‘The variation of lateral stress of the backfill acting on the abutment with time and mean deck temperature is shown in Figure 14 and Figure Ad of Appendix A. A strong correlation existed with temperature and as the bridge deck expanded lateral stress increases were observed. Figure 15 shows the distributions with depth of the lateral earth pressure acting on the north abutment shortly after backfilling was completed on day 657 and up until day 1291. After backfilling, pressures on cells 2, 3 and 4 were consistent in magnitude to those that would be predicted using the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K,=1-sing) of 0.33 calculated from the ¢',,, of 42°. As 7‘Axial load («Nim Bending moment (kN) 18 +0000 3000 1200 [Gages aim fom abate: iY 16.800 KNimC,rogrossion Si ction = 084 L 5 10 6 Moan deck temperature from thermistors (°C) 2) Asia! oad ++ve bonding moment indeaigg sagging o's ‘Mean dock tomperaturo from thormistors(*C) ) Bending moment Figure 13 Variation of deck axial load and bending moment with temperature (Phase 1)Lateral stress (kin) Lateral siross (kim) Lateral sires (kim) Lateral sts (kN) Lateral stress (kim) Temperature (°C) |___ Change of scale for logges data i No data beg pene ON 600 700 a a a a a a) (a) Moan deck temperature (°C) o Change of scale ° —- Samat » — oO = Sea > eee oO SOR pe ee Cy for logged data © 2 of 5 age gg gOS SO Corer © ee ° lee o eee 2) oe ° + 38 ia hs a ato ee 60 1 Change of scale : fpeueneee a ° A mm TO aT SOS a 7g a OST ge ee cop a © 1 ‘Change of scale ® -—~ Saas 20 le No data ——— 3 (0 Prossure call 1 (6.2m below deck) | a So ao NN oR oo OR aoc oO OS — Figure 14 Variations in lateral stress with temperature (Phase 1) 19‘Depth below top of deck (m) a 1 i \ Day 689 Deck temp. 15.1°C Day 698 Deck temp. 19.9°C Day 703 Deck temp. 17.9°C Mean cols 6-9 || Day 824 Deck temp. 10.6°C Day 901 Deck tomp. 04°C Day 1085 cana | | Deoktemp. 21.8% Day 1210 Deck temp. 12.8°C co's Day 1291 Deck temp. 24°C coz L ! “I 20 +10 ° 10 20 90 40 50 60 Lateral pressure (kN) Figure 15 Lateral pressures acting on the abutment (Phase 1) backfilling took place in the summer months, these stresses soon started to reduce as the bridge deck contracted with the approach of winter. During the following summer, ‘maximum lateral pressures were recorded on day 1055 when the mean deck temperature reached 21.8°C. As shown in Figure 15, the pressures on cells 2, 3 and 4 were then slightly above those calculated from the coefficient of ‘earth pressure at rest. The mean pressures on cells 6 t0 9 were small as these cells measured the contact stresses behind the 25mm thick Aerofill packing layer which, separated the reinforced earth fill from the abutment wall. 20 As the reinforced earth fill was constructed during the summer, the first real indication of any stress escalation towards the top of the abutment might be expected to take ‘many seasonal cycles of movement to develop. 7 Performance of Phase 2 bridge ‘The timetable of construction activities is given in Table 2. (On completion of construction, seasonal monitoring of performance commenced. From day 859 computer logging,of the electrical and vibrating wire instruments was introduced and the changes from manual to logged data are evident in some of the time plots. As for Phase 1, graphs of data during construction and the first winter in service are presented in the main body of the text. For convenience similar graphs of seasonal monitoring results during the following year in service are presented in Appendix B. 7.1 Lateral movement of the deck and abutments The lateral movements of the surface of the deck established using inclinometer tubes 13 and [4 in the south and north abutments respectively are shown in Figure 16¢ and Figure B1 of Appendix B. Figure 16a shows the variation in mean deck temperature and Figure 16b shows the movement at the central pier over the same period. 2 2 s & 215 z E10 & 5 Bridge ae jopenes 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1900 Day number {a) Mean deck temperature (thermocouples) E £ 2 1 £0 a = a Brage ——S Ba Sree Movement towards north ve 5 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Dey number (b) Movement at central pier 8 ‘south abuiron er © Inclinometer IS. 8 Goomeneor ce ab enon abument = | & Inclinometer 14 Eat | ‘@ Cacmonsor ab i fo a e Bet 4 4b “ oe ovement onan oir v8 eco 200 700 7100 7200 7300 Day number (€) Movement at abutments Figure 16 Lateral movements at deck level (Phase 2) 21Generally a fallin temperature produces a contraction of the deck and Figure 17 shows the regressions of top of abutment movements against deck temperature, Movements obtained on inclinometer tubes 13 and I4 were similar which indicated that little or no movement of the central pier was occurring. On the basis of the limited number of readings, some of which were in the construction period, an overall change of 0.397mm/C for the 42.9m long deck was obtained. This corresponded to a coefficient of deck thermal expansion of 9.25x10°P°C which is consistent with the expected value when limestone ageregates are used in the concrete (BD37, DMRB 1.3). The Geomensor results, shown in Figure 16c, confirm that there was little or no ‘movement of the central pier. 7.2. Axial loads and bending moments developed in the north abutment Figure 18 and Figure B2 of Appendix B show the variation with time of the axial loads and bending ‘moments determined from measurements using the vibrating wire strain gauges in the piled abutment. Soon after the deck was cast, loads were approximately those calculated from the dead load assuming the deck was simply supported. As has been previously discussed, the simply supported case is likely to predict the minimum load taken by the abutment. Over the following 150 days, some increase in load occurred, with values generally stabilising between 500 and 800kN/m although there ‘were some exceptions to this. After day 819 when the road was opened to traffic and during the period of seasonal monitoring, the deck temperatures ranged from approximately +2°C to +25°C and only small changes in axial load in the piled abutment were measured. Slightly more fluctuation in the bending ‘moments occurred particularly with the measurements on ‘gauges nearer to the top of the abutment. Figure 19 shows the distribution of bending moment with depth for seven dates. As with Phase 1, a negative bending moment was recorded at the top of the integral abutment due to the ‘moment from the deck dead load. A peak bending moment of about 450kNm/m was recorded at about 99m AOD which was just below finished ground level beneath the bridge. This bending moment reversal and the general shape of the distribution is typical of that which would be expected for an embedded retaining wall propped at the top and founded in stiff clay (Padfield and Mair, 1984). 7.3 Axial loads and bending moments developed in the deck ‘As construction of the bridge for Phase 2 took place over a ‘much shorter time than Phase 1, fewer readings were available from the instruments installed in the deck. The ‘measurements of temperature, bending moment and axial load in the deck that were available during this construction stage are shown in Figure 20 whilst Figure B3 of Appendix B shows the measurements available during the seasonal monitoring. Generally the axial load developed during construction was no more than 3000kN/m whereas comparable values for Phase 1 (Figure 12) were about double this. Calculated shrinkage and creep magnitudes over the period of monitoring suggested that, in theory, upper bound values of 8% and 10% respectively of the measured deck load could be due to these effects. e £ z3 co4 z i @ (icinometer ube ‘Slope = 0.216 mm/°C, regression s cooticent= 0.79 ° of or Base fi ‘inclinometer SBeacetmnd 5 . 1 1 . L 1 : 1 2 4 6 3 70 2 6 16 78 20 Deck temperature (°C) Figure 17 Variation in lateral movement of the top of the abutments with deck temperature (Phase 2) 2g24 AOD (m) 110 105 100 95 90 85 + | Deck tomp. 41°C j- | Deck temp. 7.6% + Ground love! Day 8205, Day 928.5, Day 936.5 Deck temp. 54°C | Day 1055 Dock temp. 21.8°C Day 1210 Deck temp.12.8°C | Day 1255 Dock tmp. 14°C : |_| Pek iege Day 1291 Deck temp. 2496 Compression of soll face L L L L L “00-600 400-200 0 200 © 400-600 Bonding moment (kNem/m) Figure 19 Variation of wall bending moment with depth (Phase 2)(C aseyg) armesaduiar yiym stuawiour pue speoy Yoop ur suoTeEA gz arn (wn) peo exxy 0) sequinu hog, 086 ove oes ozs 006 088 ose ue 098 008 oz 008 g (21808 0 ab ues (wpa) wowous Bupusg (9) sequinu fea, oss ove Ce ee owe zene 002 008 ug = quouange woy ‘199 988010, i soueisip fine aeom eb (04) sioysuuvoy wor eungeredsoy xo0p ueayy (2) vequinu fea, 06 ore 086 026 oe 006 68 ose we 098 008 004 008 $$," BED ON ‘ siojsuON 10607 Siojsuvo vec) — ep po66o| 10) ‘24208 jo Bubp (uy) p80} ey 25 (wpunp) wswou Bupvog (0,) eimeseduio,The results in Figure B3 showed that the axial loads developed during the hottest period of the seasonal ‘monitoring, when the expansion of the bridge was at a ‘maximum, were almost treble those developed during the ‘coldest spells when the bridge had contracted to a minimum deck length. A comparison of the seasonal ‘changes with those for Phase 1 (as shown in Figure A3) suggested that axial loads in the latter ease were again about double those measured for Phase 2. ‘After opening of the road to traffic on day 819, thermal fluctuations in deck axial loads and bending moments occurred. These effects are investigated in Figure 21 Figure 21a shows that axial loads in the deck changed with temperature at a mean rate of 113KN/mAC. This value can bbe compared with that of 144kN/mAC for the stiffer abutment of Phase 1 (Section 6.3) where deck expansion is ‘more constrained. If the abutments of the bridge were fully constrained and assuming the measured coefficient of thermal expansion (from Section 7.1), load increase of 487KN/mPC would be anticipated, ‘The bending moment data in Figure 21b show that a small sagging moment of 10kNm/m/C developed at 5m from the abutment as the deck temperature increased. At ‘2m from the abutment, there was litte evidence of any significant thermal hogging or sagging of the deck as indicated by the low regression coefficient for this data. 74 Lateral stresses acting on the north abutment AAs for Phase 1, the lateral stresses measured behind the ‘Acrofill packing between the reinforced earth fill and the abutment wall were again small. Plots of the variation of Jateral stress with time are compared with the variation of ‘mean deck temperature in Figure 22 and Figure B4 of Appendix B. During the initial two months after completion of the reinforced earth, pressures on the four cells at about 1.5m depth were in the range 5 to 18kN/m?. In the following period of about 80 days when computer logging of the data was available, deck temperatures were below 10°C and the maximum lateral stress at this depth remained below 1SkN/m?. During the period of seasonal monitoring, the deck temperatures, as mentioned earlier, ranged from +2°C to +25°C, and the resulting lateral stresses measured behind the Aerofill packing were inthe range from zero to +15kN/m®. The reinforced earth fll extended to a depth of 2.5m and measurements of lateral stresses in the underlying in situ ground in which the bored piles were founded were not available. 8 Conclusions ‘The field performance has been evaluated of two integral bridges of 40m span over the M66 Manchester Outer Ri Road. One of the bridges (Phase 2) was constructed with ‘contiguous bored pile abutments founded in glacial tll. ‘The other bridge (Phase 1) was a more conventional portal frame structure with the abutments retaining granular backfill. Field measurements were obtained during construction and over the first two years in service and the following conclusions reached. 26 {For both bridges, expansion and contraction of the deck took place with temperature changes. Measurements indicated that the coefficients of thermal expansion of the deck were 9.6x10°FC and 9.25x10%C for Phase 1 and Phase 2 bridges respectively. These values were consistent with those expected when limestone aggregates are used in concrete (BD37, DMRB 1.3). During remedial work on the Phase 1 bridge, the south and north abutments did not move identically and some lateral movement ( 4mm) of the bridge towards the north occurred. ii Shortly after both decks were cast, vertical axial loads on the abutments of about SOOkN/m were measured which corresponded with the value calculated from the dead load of the deck assuming each span between the central pier and the abutment was simply supported. Loads increased to between 500 and 1000kN/m on removal of the formwork. These results suggest that, in the design of integral abutments and where the deck is ‘cast in place, it would be prudent to allow for the total bridge dead load being equally shared between the supports as the assumption of simply supported spans ‘may not be appropriate. iiBBending moments in the abutments of both bridges varied as changes in temperature caused deck expansion and contraction. The largest changes occurred near to the top of the abutments. In both Phases 1 and 2, bending moments at the abutment tops were negative due to the moment from the deck dead load being transferred to the integral abutment. With the bored pile abutment, a peak bending moment of about 450kNa/m ‘was recorded just below finished ground level beneath the bridge: bending moment reversal then occurred at depth, The results with the portal frame structure were complicated by the construction sequence and the presence of a lower permanent prop. iv Generally the axial load developed in the integral deck during construction was no more than 3000kN/m for Phase 2 whereas comparable values for Phase 1 were about double this. This may have been caused by the ‘complicated construction sequence involving remedial ‘works for Phase 1 or the higher flexural rigidity (about 4 times) of the Phase 1 reinforced concrete abutments compared with the Phase 2 bored pile abutments. Resulis over the first two years in service indicate that the thermal load change in the deck developed against the stiffer Phase 1 abutment was 144kN/m/C compared with L13kN/mw/*C for Phase 2. These values can be compared with that of about SOOKN/mC calculated for ‘abridge with fully constrained abutments. Only small changes in deck bending moment with temperature were measured for both bridges. v Lateral stresses shortly after compaction of the backfill against the north abutment of Phase 1 were consistent with those predicted using the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K,). As backfilling took place in the ‘summer months, these stresses soon started to reduce as the bridge deck contracted with the approach of ‘winter. During the following summer, maximum‘Axial load (kN/m) Bending moment (kNm/m) ‘5000 3000) 2000) +000] 1009, ‘Gauges at Sm from abutment. ‘Slope = 128.171 KNmG, regression covticent = 0.74 Mean deck temperature (°C) a) Axial load “eve bending moment indicates sagging ‘Gaugy ‘Siope = 10.305 kNm/mC, regression cootfcient = 0.58 ‘Gauges at 2m irom abutment Slope = 2.657 mmc, rogrosion coaficient = 0.08 5 10 6 20 25 Mean deck temperature ('C) ) Bending moment Figure 21 Variation of axial load and bending moment with deck temperature (Phase 2) PyTemperature (°C) Lateral stress (kN/m®) Lateral stress (kNim*) Lateral stress (kim?) Lateral stress (kN?) Ea Change o scale 2 : for logged data 6 H d No data 10 avaiable 5 i te fn 3 H ‘600 700 eo 660670 ~—~660~«90~=«OSC«TSCSCaSCOC (6) Mean dock temperature (0) 2 Change of scale 6 : forlogged data 10 : ° PN I Nyy ° * s ! 10 ‘600 700 a a nD (b) Pressure coll 4 20 1 Change of scale 18 : forlogged data, 0 : 5 ; 2 goo ~~ 700 ~SCS~«OSSC« wo 890800 —810~—«wR0—wGD SCC (0) Pressure cell 3 0 L Change of scale 18 : tor logged data 10 5 } a (0) Pressure cl 2 2 range o scale : forlogged data 18 ' 10 ; 5 ; a n a a Day number (6) Pressure colt Figure 22 Variations in lateral stress with temperature at 1.53m depth (Phase 2)lateral pressures, which were then slightly above those calculated from K,, were recorded when the mean deck temperature reached 21.8°C. The contact stresses bbehind the 25mm thick compressible packing layer ‘which separated the reinforced earth fill from the top of the abutment wall were generally small. As backfilling and reinforced earth construction took place during the summer, the first real indication of significant lateral stress escalation behind the abutment ‘ight be expected to take many seasonal cycles of ‘movement to develop. Further long term monitoring is required to assess this effect. 9 Acknowledgements ‘The work described in thi report forms part ofthe research programme of the Civil Engineering Resource Contre of TRL and was funded by Quality Services (CE) of the Highways Agency. The Project Manager for Quality Services was Dr D I Bush. In addition tothe authors, the TRL research team included Mr P Darley, Mr G H Alderman, MrM Easton, Mr M D Ryley and Mr'N Paul. ‘Thanks are due to Mr G Biswas of Highways Agency for permission to carry out the study at tis site. The co-operation and assistance of the site staff of Mouchel Consulting Partners (Mr C C Sargent, Mr G Williams, Mr A White, MrJ M Heaton and Mr P Roddis) and of the Miller Kier Joint Venture is gratefully acknowledged. 10 References British Standards Institution (1990). Steel, concrete and composite bridges. BS5400: Part 4. Code of practice for design of concrete bridges. British Standards Institution, London, Broms B B and Ingleson I (1972). Earth pressure against the abutment of a rigid frame bridge. Geotechnique, Vol 21, No 1, pp15-28. Card G Band Carder D R (1993). A literature review of the geotechnical aspects of the design of integral bridge abutments. Project Report PR52. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthome. Darley P, Carder D R and Alderman G H (1996). Seasonal thermal effects on the shallow abutment of an integral bridge in Glasgow. TRL Report TRL178. ‘Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). ‘Volume 1: Section 3 General Design. Stationery Office, London. BA 42 The design of integral bridges. (OMRB 1.3) BD 51 Design for durability. (DMRB 1.3.7) BD 37 Loads for highway bridges. Use of BS5400:Part 2. (DRE 1.3) England G L and Dunstan T (1994). Shakedown solutions for soil containing structures as influenced by cyclic temperatures - integral bridge and biological filter. Proc 3rd Int Conf Structural Engineering, Singapore. Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW). Stationery Office, London. Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works. (MCHW1) Padfield C J and Mair R J (1984). Design of retaining walls embedded in stiff clay. CIRIA Report 104. London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 29‘Suquado @8puq soye pamseour siuewonout [eso] TY aanBpy (qi wouange ion (9) (uu) ywausonow jee su se i T T Patneen se mapwourn fr ord Joe oven sprenoywouenon -| 08 ds dee a 406 3 8 8 8 deo § des $ 24L¥ ual 980 4 a ‘vezi Ae ooL 001 sos sob Bo dou * 266 feq 9,¥'S “dw 1000 soe fe = su ou T aseyq 29y Sy1nsax Sujroyfuou jeuostag 7y xppueddy‘Temperature (°C) Bending moment (Nein) ‘Axial load (kN) = Upper thermistors Lower thermistors 1000) 1100 "1200 1300 Day number () Mean dock tomporatur from thermistor Gauge dept:- ee een SRP TH Aimee RE ener Jay eves 11000) 1100 1200 "7200 ay number (0) Bending moment ‘4000 aon No data available Gauge doph= a 2000 +1000 ° 1000 cre ~ a -2000, 00 1000) 1100 200 1300 Day number (6) Axil load Figure A2 Variations in abutment loads and moments with temperature aTemperature (°C) 1200 Bending moment (kNevm) 32. [= Upper thermistors |] Lower thormistors No data avaliable 1000 1100 1200 1300 Day number (2) Mean deck temperature from thermistors soameani al GIN ANI dpc vk waft say! peti Hy , NAY Pa? 1000 1100 1200 7200 ‘Day number () Benaing moment PA batnnl Abaya pseu oft OS BAR at havi Y Ws No data available mn 1000 1100 1200 +900 Day number (6) Avial load Figure A3 Variations in deck loads and moments with temperaturegocee Temperate (’C) Lateral tress (km) Lateral sess (un) BB Noaata ‘alae 1000 100 "200 1300 ay number (a) Mean deck temperature (°C) Nogata ‘alae 1000 7100 ‘200 1900 ay number (©) Avorage of cals 809 (1.62m below dock) "200 1900 ‘Day nurber (6) Pressure call 4 (3.2m below deck) - 7 A e ° No data —_ . : Lar a fs a fe fa — emeeearacc meee aol POO | Soa RR 20; available : ~ ae fas 7 es a — (©) Pressure cos 2 (6.2m boiow dock) No data 000 Tio8 1200 00 Day number (Pressure cls (0.3m below dock) Figure Ad Variations in lateral stress with temperature 33° (oi wounnge won (@) (uau) yuoworous 21817 2 r s 8 Sumuado ofpuq soye pasnseaut swuowionour pesowe] Te aan se paunsse art eiewouyoul o Any asta, ‘9n- anU99 SpIEMO} OWIOAOHK oe se 08 z $6 oor sot ou out’? “dua 3680 ‘e2i fea ‘954° "dues 000, ‘zat hea ar Lt dusar 00, S911 Aca, 965) duuer 00 zore fea 28°11 “duwor 2 trot fea, 936 L1 dwei 7900 266 fea 9r'5 dw 9900 966 feg (ci) wounnge yinos (e) (ww) juouenou sa1=7 ° z r & & pownese ogni eyewoujou jo Aimy e8ee ‘9 emu Sp1EMo} 1UBwOKOW se oo () cov 7 aseiq 10} Synser Buproyfuow jeuoseag +q xIpUaddy‘uneroduoy EM sjuswoul pur speo] jaMINge WL suoHEEEA Ze amNY, ‘equ fag con ozs Ef ooo on, bea - ox ows z o 8 oo: 008 i of cone cose oo Soe we g or é 4 o 3 oz B vor 3 oo» oot oo ous oon os ° og 3 af _ +4 wl a § coming — wee : on aig = XY Le @s Selene exp on se o‘amyeroduie) ypiis squowow! pue speo] y99p ur suoNELEA Ex aan — in Te wo wus { 006 (WAUNy) jUaWoUW Buypueg (q) as . een) \° eer aa ‘. = ibn terrapin tig MIR HRIRRSOM IS owned bas W ES sete (0) sioismuUaYy WOH yada Yep UBBW\ (B) aw . : a ee ZTE “ [sees | 2 [s=aen= | F (wpe) peor (wnuna) wewow Bupueg (0,) eimesedwoy,Temperature (°C) Lateral stress (kN) Lateral stress (kN) Lateral stress (Nm) Lateral stress (kin) yoda eatie a eZ 8 it A a, ° Pry MN a Aad s wh ‘yal, 5 toa rr = ea 0 ‘ey aber (a) Mean deck temperature (°C) 5 = 10 No an “~ Bb eae ‘ th. : NA tag TL a i or is ‘Sor —s eiborvens 5 a seo mae om 2 e eI elt L\ SR Aspe a 5 aya 5 soo 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300 oe en A ® No * “~ 10 anit S, 7 lca bp eet 5 soo 1000 1100 1200 1300 — (eine ct 2 6 y* data aS 10 Awa, ON tp nr, ye 5 ° (aA etal AO Nba hy y00 1000 1100 1200, 1300 a (oPmnrecat ‘Figure B4 Variations in lateral stress with temperature at 1.53m depth 3738ISSN 0968-4107 ren Transport Research Laboratory Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6AU Tel: +44 (0) 1344 773131 Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770356 E-mail: enquiries@trl.co.uk http://www.trl.co.uk H Performance of the two integral bridges forming the A62 Manchester Road Overbridge TRL REPORT 436