An Evaluation of The Effect of Skew On Integral Bridges by Computer Based Grillage Analysis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/263261816
An Evaluation of the Effect of Skew on Integral Bridges by Computer Based

Grillage Analysis
Thesis · January 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 670
1 author:
Tom Channell
University of Portsmouth
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Channell on 20 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Evaluation of the
Effect of Skew on
Integral Bridges by
Computer Based
Grillage Analysis
UP613716
MEng Individual Research Project
University of Portsmouth
Abstract
The constant drive to save money within the construction industry has recently highlighted
many flaws in maintaining bridge bearings. Due to this, integral bridges have become a
necessity for short to medium span bridges in order to save on longer term costs. This
project was set out to evaluate the limitations of designing integral bridges through a
computer modelling analysis and comparing the findings to skews set out by UK Design
Guidelines.
Models are created in MIDAS Civil 3D, with varying skews and soil conditions, in order to
evaluate the reasoning behind the limits set out by BA 42/96 and PD 6694-1. The findings
suggest that a critical angle is between 20° and 23° and that the tension in the abutment
acute corner, moves upwards from the base of the wall after around 30°. Due to the latter,
the limit is deemed fair as complications will arise within the design, however the limits strict
adherence within the industry should be made more flexible as integral construction allows
opportunities to save on vast amounts of maintenance costs.
II
Table of Contents
Marks Sheet ........................................................................................................................... I
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. II
List of Figures....................................................................................................................... VI
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... VII
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... VIII
Glossary ............................................................................................................................. VIII
Statement of Originality ........................................................................................................ IX
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 What is an integral bridge? ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Why build integral bridges? ..................................................................................... 1
1.3 Limitations of integral bridges .................................................................................. 1
1.4 Report Overview ..................................................................................................... 2
2. Aims and Objectives....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Aim.......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3
3. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 4
3.1 General/Overview ................................................................................................... 4
3.11 British and European Design Guidelines .............................................................. 4
3.12 American Design Guides ..................................................................................... 4
3.13 Reasoning behind integral bridge limits ............................................................... 5
3.14 Current Integral Bridges (Case Studies) .............................................................. 5
3.2 Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) ................................................................................ 8
3.21 Time-Temperature Loading Problem (TTLP) ....................................................... 8
3.22 Cyclic loading of backfill and abutment ................................................................ 9
3.3 Foundation and Abutment Design ..........................................................................10
3.31 Backfill Design ....................................................................................................10
3.32 Abutment Types .................................................................................................12
III
3.33 Flexible Foundations ...........................................................................................13
3.4 Integral Bridge Modelling ........................................................................................15
3.41 Modelling cyclic loading of backfill and soil structure interaction .........................16
3.42 Modelling examples ............................................................................................16
3.43 Modelling backfills...............................................................................................17
4. Methodology..................................................................................................................18
4.1 Procedure ..............................................................................................................18
4.11 Soil Parameters ..................................................................................................19
4.12 Backfill Specification ...........................................................................................22
4.13 Loading Cases....................................................................................................22
4.14 Span Length Consistency ...................................................................................23
4.2 Justification ............................................................................................................23
4.21 Program Choice ..................................................................................................23
4.22 Bridge Specification ............................................................................................23
4.3 Modelling Limitations ..............................................................................................24
5. Results ..........................................................................................................................26
5.1 Overview of Model .................................................................................................26
5.2 Abutment Stress Contours .....................................................................................28
5.21 Sand ...................................................................................................................28
5.22 Soft Clay .............................................................................................................29
5.23 Stiff Clay .............................................................................................................30
5.3 Top of Pile Results .................................................................................................31
5.4 Abutment Acute Corner Results .............................................................................37
6. Discussion .....................................................................................................................40
6.1 General Abutment Stress Contour Analysis ...........................................................40
6.2 Pile Analysis ...........................................................................................................41
6.21 Pile Moment........................................................................................................41
6.22 Pile Displacement ...............................................................................................42
IV
6.3 Abutment Analysis .................................................................................................44
6.31 X Directional Stress ............................................................................................44
6.32 Y Directional Stress ............................................................................................45
6.33 XY Directional Stress ..........................................................................................46
6.4 Critical Angle Estimations .......................................................................................47
6.5 Comparisons to BA 42/96 and PD 6694-1 ..............................................................47
6.6 Variability and Errors ..............................................................................................48
6.61 Calculation Checks .............................................................................................48
6.62 Parallax/Human Error .........................................................................................48
6.7 Limitations of Work .................................................................................................48
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................50
7.1 Literature Review Summary ...................................................................................50
7.2 Result and Discussion Conclusions........................................................................50
7.21 British Design Guide Modifications .....................................................................50
7.3 Further work ...........................................................................................................51
7.31 Effectiveness of Artificial Backfills .......................................................................51
7.32 Correctly Modelling SSI ......................................................................................51
7.33 Comparison of Integral Bridge Types ..................................................................51
7.34 Time-Temperature and Bridge Life Cycle Performance ......................................51
7.35 Views on Integral Bridges in Industry ..................................................................51
7.36 Effect of Restricting Vertical Movement in Integral Abutments ............................52
8.0 References ................................................................................................................53
Appendix 1 - Ethics Review ..............................................................................................57
Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment.........................................................................................59
Appendix 3 – Detailed Numerical Results .........................................................................61
Appendix 4 – Skew Values ...............................................................................................66
V
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 - MASONRY ARCH INTEGRAL BRIDGE (AUTHOR’S OWN) ............................................. 1
FIGURE 2 – AN ILLUSTRATION OF EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION IN AN INTEGRAL BRIDGE 8
FIGURE 3 - EBT GRAPH WITH RESPECT TO TTLP TAKEN FROM KIM & LAMAN (2010 P.1500)... 9
FIGURE 4 – INTEGRAL BRIDGE ABUTMENT LAYOUTS. TAKEN FROM BA 42/96 (THE
HIGHWAYS AGENCY, 2003)........................................................................................................ 12
FIGURE 5 – DETAILED ABUTMENT DIAGRAM. TAKEN FROM SOUBRY (2001, PP. 8.4.4-2). ....... 13
FIGURE 6 - ARRANGEMENT OF H PILE CONNECTIONS TAKEN FROM AHN, YOON, KIM, & KIM,
(2011) ............................................................................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 7 – BASIC SPRING ANALYSIS TAKEN FROM ICE (2008) .................................................. 15
FIGURE 8 - A GENERAL VIEW OF THE FINALISED MODEL (SAND AT 0° SKEW)......................... 19
FIGURE 9 – CONSTANT EARTH PRESSURE APPLIED TO ABUTMENT WALL .............................. 22
FIGURE 10 – CROSS SECTION IDEALISATION OF THE REINFORCED CONCRETE INTEGRAL
BRIDGE MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 11 – SLEEVES USED AROUND STEEL H PILES. TAKEN FROM (SCI, 2010, P. 110)...... 24
FIGURE 12 – POSITION OF ORIGIN AND DIRECTION OF AXES .................................................... 26
FIGURE 13 – LOCATION OF NODE 21 ON THE ABUTMENT WALL. ............................................... 27
FIGURE 14 – LOCATION OF ELEMENT 16 AND NODE 21 ON THE ABUTMENT WALL................. 27
FIGURE 15 - GENERAL VIEW OF THE STRESS IN A 0° SKEW INTEGRAL BRIDGE IN SAND WITH
THE DEFORMITY CHECKBOX TICKED ...................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 16 – ABUTMENT WALL STRESS CONTOURS FOR SAND. ............................................... 28
FIGURE 17 - ABUTMENT WALL STRESS CONTOURS FOR SOFT CLAY. ...................................... 29
FIGURE 18 - ABUTMENT WALL STRESS CONTOURS FOR STIFF CLAY ....................................... 30
FIGURE 19 – GRAPH OF MOMENT IN THE Y DIRECTION AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21). . 31
FIGURE 20 - GRAPH OF MOMENT IN THE Z DIRECTION AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21). .. 32
FIGURE 21 - GRAPH OF RESULTANT DISPLACEMENT AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) ..... 33
FIGURE 22 - GRAPH OF Y DIRECTIONAL DISPLACEMENT AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) 34
FIGURE 23 - GRAPH OF X DIRECTIONAL DISPLACEMENT AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) 35
FIGURE 24 - GRAPH OF Z DIRECTIONAL DISPLACEMENT AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) 36
FIGURE 25 - GRAPH OF STRESS IN THE Y DIRECTION AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) ... 37
FIGURE 26 - GRAPH OF STRESS IN THE X DIRECTION AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) ... 38
FIGURE 27 - GRAPH OF STRESS IN THE X-Y DIRECTION AGAINST SKEW ANGLE (NODE 21) 39
FIGURE 28 - LOCATION OF THE ACUTE CORNER FROM THE STRESS CONTOURS. ................ 40
FIGURE 29 - DISPLACEMENT “DEFORMED” IMAGE FOR 0 DEGREE SKEW SAND MODEL
(“PUSHING OUT”) ......................................................................................................................... 43
VI
List of Tables
TABLE 1 - MAXIMUM LENGTHS FOR INTEGRAL BRIDGES IN AMERICA. TAKEN FROM DICLELI
& ALBHAISI (2004) .......................................................................................................................... 6
TABLE 2 – TABLE OF MAXIMUM LENGTHS OF AMERICAN INTEGRAL BRIDGES. ADAPTED
FROM (CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES CENTER, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MINERAL
RESOURCES, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, 2005). ................................................................. 6
TABLE 3 – COMPARING GRANULAR BACKFILL TO EPS BLOCKS. ADAPTED FROM DAVIES,
KUCKI, FRY, & BULL .................................................................................................................... 11
TABLE 4 – POTENTIAL LENGTHS OF BRIDGES BASED ON CLIMATE AND PILE DIMENSIONS
ADAPTED FROM DICLELI & ALBHAISI (2004) ........................................................................... 14
TABLE 5 - SOIL PARAMETERS REQUIRED BY MIDAS CIVIL 3D FOR SSI OF AN INTEGRAL
BRIDGE ......................................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 6 - CONSTANT SOIL VALUES INPUT INTO MIDAS CIVIL 3D ............................................... 20
TABLE 7 - VALUES FOR CALCULATION OF 1/2 STRAIN AT MAX STRESS VALUE FOR STIFF
AND SOFT CLAY .......................................................................................................................... 21
TABLE 8 - A TABLE REPRESENTING THE ANGLE OF SKEW AT WHICH THE MOMENT REACHES
THE POINT OF CONTRAFLEXURE. ........................................................................................... 41
TABLE 9 - CALCULATING THE X INTERCEPT FOR X DIRECTIONAL STRESS.............................. 44
TABLE 10 - CALCULATING THE X INTERCEPT FOR Y DIRECTIONAL STRESS............................ 45
TABLE 11 - CALCULATING THE X INTERCEPT FOR XY DIRECTIONAL STRESS ......................... 46
TABLE 12 - VALUES FOR NODE 21 (TOP OF PILE) FOR SAND ...................................................... 61
TABLE 13 - VALUES FOR NODE 21 (TOP OF PILE) FOR SOFT CLAY ............................................ 62
TABLE 14 - VALUES FOR NODE 21 (TOP OF PILE) FOR STIFF CLAY ............................................ 63
TABLE 15 – VALUES FOR NODE 21 (ABUTMENT STRESS BOTTOM) FOR SAND ........................ 64
TABLE 16 – VALUES FOR NODE 21 (ABUTMENT STRESS BOTTOM) FOR SOFT CLAY .............. 64
TABLE 17 – VALUES FOR NODE 21 (ABUTMENT STRESS BOTTOM) FOR STIFF CLAY ............. 65
TABLE 18 - CALCULATIONS FOR SKEW ANGLE PER 5M RUN ...................................................... 66
VII
List of Abbreviations
EBT Effective bridge temperature
EPS Expanded polystyrene blocks
FEA Finite element analysis
SSI Soil-structure interaction
TTLP Time-temperature loading problem
__________________________________________________________________________
Glossary
The area of the abutment wall considered most critical in the
Acute corner
design process.
The angle that when designing an integral bridge, should be

Critical angle
considered as having adverse effects on bridge performance.
Effective bridge
A parameter for temperature used when designing bridges.
temperature
Soil ratcheting/strain The phenomena of soil to become stronger after many cyclic
hardening rotations of the soil due to temperature/time.
Soil-Structure The concept of the movement of either the soil or the structure
interaction directly affecting the forces/stress on the other.
VIII
Statement of Originality
Title of Report: An Evaluation of the Effect of Skew on Integral Bridges by Computer
Based Grillage Analysis
Word count: 9776
I, the undersigned, declare that this report is my own original work. Where I have taken data,
ideas and/or wording from another person or published source this is explicitly acknowledged
and referenced in the text.
I provide a copy of the electronic source from which this report was printed. I give my
permission for this report, and the electronic source, to be used in any manner considered
necessary to fulfil the requirements of the University of Portsmouth Regulations, Procedures
and Codes of Practice.
Please tick the appropriate box below.
 I give permission that this report may be made available to others via the University of
Portsmouth library for the purpose of research.
 I do not give permission that this report may be made available to others via the
University of Portsmouth library for the purpose of research.
Name: Thomas Channell
Student number: 613716
Signature:
Date:
IX
1. Introduction
1.1 What is an integral bridge?
An integral bridge is described as a bridge
which has no moving parts i.e. no expansion
joints or bearings. All sections of the bridge are
connected monolithically. Integral bridges are
generally made from a combination of steel
and concrete. As well as these, another
material used to make integral bridges is
masonry, most commonly used in an arch Figure 1 - Masonry arch integral bridge
(author’s own)
bridge (Soubry, 2001, p. 8.6). An example of is
shown in Figure 1.
1.2 Why build integral bridges?

As maintenance costs on bridges continue to rise, it becomes increasingly probable that
integral bridges will play a much more vital role for the transportation system in the years to
come. The Department of Transport (1989) found that increasing costs are occurring due to
expansion joints and the use of bearings and state that both of these bridge elements should
be used only when necessary. Consequently, the level of understanding of this subject will
need improvement in order to guarantee the safe construction and use of these type of
bridges.
An integral bridge is profoundly beneficial to the prospective repairs needed, as it removes

the need for replacement of bearings or consistent inspection of joints. They can also provide
better results when placed under seismic loading (David & Forth, 2011).
1.3 Limitations of integral bridges

As an integral bridge has no joints or bearings it is fundamentally more difficult to design, as
lateral forces add second order affects onto the supports and foundations.
The time-temperature loading problem (TTLP) is a cause of complication within integral

bridge design as it suggests that throughout the cycle of a year soil tends to behave
differently depending on surrounding temperature. This can cause compaction and
densification over the life-cycle of the bridge.
In the UK, all bridges under 60m and skew of 30° should be of integral construction
according to British design codes. This is due to the complexity that arises around the
abutment ends due to longer lengths and higher skews. However some American integral
1
bridges exceed 200m in length. Skew is also a limitation when designing these bridges as
large skews create non-uniform pressures and tensions in the abutment wall.
1.4 Report Overview

This report covers a literature review of integral bridges as a whole and in particular new
advancements in backfill design. Following this, a computer model methodology is used to
evaluate the effect in increasing skew. The report concludes with a suggestion of a critical
angle of skew and proposed changes to the current documents of BA 42/96 (The Highways
Agency, 2003) and PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011).
2
2. Aims and Objectives
2.1 Aim
The aim of this thesis it to better understand problems linked to the construction of integral
bridges and comment on the effect of skew, particularly in comparison to the limit set out by
BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003).
2.2 Objectives
1) A literature review on both the time-temperature loading problem and integral bridges
and abutments as a whole.
2) A computer analysis of a given integral bridge scenario with respect to increasing

skews, comparing the affect this has on critical bridge elements.
3) An analysis of the computer modelling data to find a critical angle of skew for different
soil conditions.
4) A proposal for modifications or additions to current design guides.
3
3. Literature Review
3.1 General/Overview
Integral bridges are an economically preferred choice for the design of small to medium
spanning bridges. This is according to many sources including Civjan, Kalayci, Quinn, Breña,
& Allen (2013). Due to this fact many design guidelines have been created both in the UK
and abroad.
3.11 British and European Design Guidelines
BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003) suggests that integral bridges more than 60m in
length and/or with a maximum skew of 30° do not have to be of integral construction. This is
in relation to BD 57 (The Highways Agency, 2001) which focuses on the subject of durability.
The values used to create these reports were obtained from various sources; most notably
Springman & Norrish (1996). However these guidelines do not specify the problems that
arise when constructing integral bridges above the 60m or 30° threshold.
The Eurocodes (BSI (2005),(2003),(2006)) do not include any comments or observations on

integral bridges. However, many of the codes do relate to the areas of analysis i.e. traffic
loading and design of reinforced concrete. CBDG (2010) state how the Eurocodes directly
link into the design of integral bridges in more detail and these are necessary to be input into
a representative model.
PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011) has added to the design method of integral bridges by building upon
BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003). It collates all research conducted on the topic since
amendment 1 was released in May 2003 and provides relevant and accurate information.
This includes further detailing on designing for abutments with skew in the deck as well as
more detailed backfill design guides.
3.12 American Design Guides
The main source for American design guides is AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
document (AASHTO, 2007). In this there is only one paragraph concerning integral bridges
which states that temperature, creep and shrinkage should be considered when designing
integral abutments. Although, as suggested by Kunin & Alampalli (2000), there is not a
unified design guide as there are different governing bodies for each individual state. These
particular design guides are also heavily dependent on past experiences with building the
structures and also by research undertaken by local universities.
4
3.13 Reasoning behind integral bridge limits
The two limits of 60m length and 30° skew are stated in BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency,
2003).These limits are due to:
• Limits on deflection due to capabilities of expansion joints connecting to the end of an

integral bridge.
• The stresses that occur in the acute section of the abutment wall being too
substantial for the concrete to withstand.
These statements are inferred from PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011).
3.14 Current Integral Bridges (Case Studies)
Hambly (1997) writes about the successful implementation of integral bridges, both on the
M1 motorway in England, and also of bridges in Sweden and the US. This report also
recommends that integral bridges become more widely used in British infrastructure.
A link road on the M1 has also performed well after three years of service (Barker & Carder,
2001). By this stage 87% of creep and shrinkage has affected the bridge, and the backfill is
applying a consistent pressure, as predicted when the bridge was designed.
Barker & Carder (2000) also looked into two similar bridges on the A62 road in Manchester.
It notes that calculations for backfill were correct, according to measurements taken after
construction of the bridge, and that all the contact pressures between the compressible layer
and the abutment were small. This is the same for another bridge monitored by Darley,
Carder, & Alderman (1996). This suggests that in the short term there are not significant
problems with well-designed integral bridges. However strain hardening and other soil
phenomena may occur in the longer term which is difficult to predict.
Due to a vastly larger transportation sector, case studies where probes have been placed in
integral bridges in order to calculate the response of the abutments are common in America.
In general American integral bridges seem to be performing better and more economically
than conventional bearing based bridges (Kunin & Alampalli, 2000). Civjan, Kalayci, Quinn,
Breña, & Allen (2013) also agree with this statement. After looking into two bridges in
Vermont, one conventional and the other with 15° skew, it was found that there was no
indication of soil ratcheting nor of pile yielding. Nonetheless it was noted that the backfill
pressures were highly variable in the bridge with the skew whereas it was consistent in the
5
linear bridge. This could result in larger scale problems in the later stages of the life cycle of
a bridge. There was no explanation suggested for this within this report.
Dicleli & Albhaisi (2004) have produced a table comparing different American states with
their maximum lengths for integral bridges. This is reflected in Table 1. However there are
some exceptions as an integral bridge, 360m in length, has been built in Tennessee. Even
so, the lengths suggested here are vastly more expansive than the current 60m limit set in
the UK.
Table 1 - Maximum lengths for integral bridges in America. Taken from Dicleli & Albhaisi (2004)
Department of Transportation Integral Concrete bridges (maximum length (m))
Colorado 240
Illinois 125
New Jersey 140
Ontario, Canada 100
Tennessee 244
The ranges are summarised for the whole of America by Constructed Facilities Center,
College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University (2005). This is
represented in the table below.
Table 2 – Table of maximum lengths of American integral bridges. Adapted from (Constructed Facilities Center,
College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University, 2005).
Type of Maximum Span Maximum Length Maximum Skew (degrees)

Bridge (m) (m)
Full Integral 65 – 300 150 – 650 15 – 70
Semi Integral 65 – 200 90 – 500 30 – 40
Deck 80 – 200 200 – 450 20 - 45

extensions
Integral Piers 100 – 300 150 - 1000 15 – No limit
6
It is clear that different countries have different ways of tackling the problem posed by
building an integral bridge. However, as implied by White II, Pétursson, & Collin (2010), there
is not a correct answer and all designs should be respective of knowledge and the site
conditions provided.
3.141 The Effect of Skew Angle
Overall, vast amounts of work has been completed with regards to the length of an integral
bridge. However not many reports have looked into the effect of the skew angle of the bridge.
PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011) states two main effects of increasing skew in the bridge deck on
integral abutments. These are a plan rotation of the deck of the bridge and the twisting of the
abutment wall. The latter would cause stresses in the “acute corner” of the abutment which is
later defined in Figure 13. This is therefore an area which would need to be analysed within a
given model when evaluating the effects of skew.
Many case studies have focused on the effect that the soil structure interaction (SSI) has had
on the integral bridge, and this would have a large impact depending on the plan skew of the
bridge deck.
7
3.2 Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)
The method used to analyse the way the soil applies pressure on the pile and abutment or
vice versa is known as soil-structure interaction. This problem is then even more problematic
due to both time and temperature. The problems related to this specific interaction are
described by Khodair & Hassiotis (2005), specifically for an integral abutment.
3.21 Time-Temperature Loading Problem (TTLP)
The time-temperature loading problem was first addressed by England, Tsang, & Bush,
(2000) with an aim to improve understanding for bridge designers and also revise and adapt
the Highways Agency BA 42 document (The Highways Agency, 2003). In this, model integral
abutments were created at 1:12 scale and discussed in relation to different lengths of
bridges. Numerical simulations were also undertaken for a 7m high abutment wall. From the
numerical simulations it was shown that after a 200 year period of cyclic loading from
temperature and traffic loads, the greater the bridge deck length or rotation magnitude (d/H),
the greater the settlement (England, Tsang, & Bush, 2000, p. 40). This finding was also
replicated from model testing. It also covered the forces that occur within the backfill behind
the abutment and the phenomena that are caused due to this. This includes the phenomena
of strain hardening. Brenner, et al. discuss temperature changes on bridges in general but
most of these findings also directly relate to integral construction.
Contraction
Expansion
Figure 2 – An illustration of expansion and contraction in an integral bridge
8
England, Tsang, & Bush, (2000) also discuss effective bridge temperature (EBT). From this it
is inferred that by constructing within the colder portion of a yearly cycle, the bridge will only
expand and this makes the design process drastically more simple. Kim & Laman (2010)
also discuss this and provide a significant graph which shows the affect that the TTLP has on
displacement of the abutment wall considering different construction times.
Figure 3 - EBT graph with respect to TTLP taken from Kim & Laman (2010 p.1500)
3.22 Cyclic loading of backfill and abutment
Many reports have been written on the subject of cyclic loading of sand behind abutment or
retaining walls. It was first examined by Springman & Norrish (1996) and their findings
showed that cyclic loading causes densification of the soil and that this in turn resulted in
pressure being applied to the retaining wall, or in this case the abutment wall. It is also stated
that the main concern when running simulations at serviceability limit state is the settlement
of the backfill.
Steele & Snowdon (1996) looked into the in-situ state of granular backfill after cyclic loading
and found that the effective angle of friction is directly proportional to the level of compaction
of the soil. It also states that higher angles of friction cause higher loads to be applied to
abutment walls. Cosgrove & Lehane (2003) looked more specifically into the cyclic loading of
loose backfill and this resulted in the finding that backfill places more stress on the abutment
wall due to the phenomenon of strain hardening it experiences. This is only true for granular
materials.
Due to this cyclic loading problem, backfill is an area of design that has been looked into
further in order to find more effective and efficient options.
9
3.3 Foundation and Abutment Design
3.31 Backfill Design
BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003) states that the backfill behind the integral abutment
should be a “free draining granular material” and conform to classes 6N or 6P, as described
in BD 30/87 (The Highways Agency, 1995). The type of granular materials that this standard
includes are:
• Natural gravel
• Natural sand
• Crushed gravel
• Crushed rock
• Chalk (with a saturation moisture content of less than 20%)
However many reports have now been written that combine these backfills with other man-
made materials to improve the structures response to movement.
3.321 Innovative backfill designs
The main aim when looking at alternative backfills is to reduce the stress on the abutment
walls. This is in order to reduce the K* value which is described in BA 42/96 (The Highways
Agency, 2003) and PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011). K* is a value which is derived from the earth
pressure behind an integral abutment wall due to strain ratcheting of the soil, and this value
is directly correlated to the weight of the element. Only used for a granular material, K* is
dependent on both the active and passive earth pressures of the soil (Ka and KP). These
values are dependent on the unit weight of the given material. However this solution to
solving earth pressure is only relevant for granular materials in the backfill and materials
other than soil have also been tested.
Steele & Snowdon (1996) propose that a polymeric compressible layer significant could
reduce the stress (K*) applied onto the abutment wall. In this case study the compressible
layer was used in conjunction with expanded clay backfill.
EPS (expanded polystyrene blocks) have been used in the Cottington Road overbridge
situated in Kent. In this, Davies, Kucki, Fry, & Bull (n.d.) compare EPS blocks to a lightweight
expanded clay and also to class 6N granular backfill. The main problem that arises from
using EPS blocks is the cost. Below is a table adapted from Davies, Kucki, Fry, & Bull which
compares class 6N granular backfill to EPS blocks.
10
Table 3 – Comparing granular backfill to EPS blocks. Adapted from Davies, Kucki, Fry, & Bull
Material 6N Granular Backfill EPS Blocks
• Placed by hand
• No compaction required
• Well understood material
• Inhibited water absorption
• Cheap and readily available
Advantages • Immune to attack from bacteria and
• Ability to use normal compaction mould
plant and testing methods
• Minimises settlement issues
• Can be recycled
• High unit weight

• Susceptible to attack from
• 0.25m compaction layers
Disadvantages hydrocarbons
• Susceptible to settlement issues
• Expensive
• Susceptible to frost heave issues
Unit Weight φd
19 0.5
(kN/m3)
Angle of
friction, Φ’ 35 N/A
(degrees)
Cost (£/m3) 35 60-80
Other reports have also been written with regard to backfill materials. Carder & Card (1997)
build upon polystyrene based products and also review the use of polyethylene foam,
geocomposite materials and rubbers. It is suggested that all of these could be used as a
compressible layer between the integral abutment and a granular backfill so long as it is
economically and structurally viable. They also suggest that these products have not been
analysed to see how they respond to cyclic loading over a long time frame.
11
In reference to a case study, Barker & Carder (2006) investigated the use of polyethylene
foam and rubber crumb sheet in both ends of a 60m spanning integral bridge. After
measuring the response both were deemed to be acceptable compressible layers to add to
integral bridge abutments.
A report has also been written that suggests testing methods for these compressible layers
(Carder, Darley, & Bush, 2002). In this, it is suggested that these testing methods for new
artificial backfills would help enable the rehabilitation of older bridges in order to make them
more economically manageable. This is only achievable for shorter spanning bridges but
would be beneficial to all types of abutment.
3.32 Abutment Types
BA 42/96 (The Highways

Agency, 2003) suggests four
main types of integral
abutments which are effective
for this type of bridge. These
are:
• Frame abutments
• Embedded abutment
• Bank seat/pad abutment
• End screen abutments.
All of these abutment types can

be combined with piled
foundations depending on the
soil located on site. The layouts
of these abutments types are
Figure 4 – Integral bridge abutment layouts. Taken from BA 42/96
represented in Figure 4. (The Highways Agency, 2003)
Carder & Hayes (2000) discuss

combinations of abutment and soil choice. In this report it is stated that generally granular
soils do not exhibit behavior that will be detrimental to the foundations and also that softer
clays should not be used under shallow abutments. This is as they do not have the stress
resisting capabilities that will be translated to them from the bending of the bridge deck.
12
3.33 Flexible Foundations
One method of reducing the stress in the abutment wall is to increase the potential range of
displacement of the piles in order to dampen the energy. H shaped steel piling, correctly
orientated and used in conjunction with a sleeve, provides a solution for this (Dicleli, Eng, &
Albhaisi, 2003). H piles are generally used within an integral bankseat configuration and this
is represented in Figure 5 taken from Soubry (2001, pp. 8.4.4-2).
Figure 5 – Detailed abutment diagram. Taken from Soubry (2001, pp. 8.4.4-2).
Many integral bridges that include flexible H piles also include a sleeve to cover them in
order to prevent them from rusting and becoming structurally redundant. This is also
beneficial to the flexibility of the piles by creating an air gap for the piles to displace into (SCI,
2010).
Ahn, Yoon, Kim, & Kim, (2011) evaluate three different

methods of connection between the abutment and the
steel H bars. They found that by allowing movement
within the foundation design (creating a “week axis”), less
stress would be transferred onto the abutment. The
connection methods evaluated are shown in Figure 6.
Abendroth, Greimann, & La Violette (2007) evaluated the

use of precast concrete piles in integral bridges and found
that these piles do not offer the same flexibility as H piling.
Figure 6 - Arrangement of H Pile
connections taken from Ahn, Yoon, Kim,
& Kim, (2011)
13
Dicleli & Albhaisi (2004) further analyse H piles with reference to thermal loading. From
mathematical analysis maximum length limits are put forward based on the piling’s
displacement capacity. Utilising the largest mass produced H pile the largest length of bridge
achievable is around 400m; based on the assumption that 345 MPa strength steel is being
used. Table 4 shows the correlation between H-Pile dimensions, temperature, and the
maximum length.
Table 4 – Potential lengths of bridges based on climate and pile dimensions Adapted from Dicleli & Albhaisi
(2004)
Pile size Concrete bridges
Moderate climate Cold climate

L (m) L (m)
HP 310x125 320 265
HP 310x110 300 250
HP 250x85 240 195
HP 250x63 180 150
14
3.4 Integral Bridge Modelling
The generally accepted method of modelling soil in finite element analysis models is through
the use of linear “Winkler” springs. However “Soil springs are non-linear” (Jayaraman, Merz,
& Ltd, 2001, p. 1) and so other methods have been suggested. ICE (2008) suggest that
using springs is the most appropriate method of analysing the whole bridge. This frame
model is shown in Figure 7 and is mainly for the use of numerical analysis.
Figure 7 – Basic spring analysis taken from ICE (2008)
David & Forth (2011) discuss various methods of modelling soil-structure interaction within
integral bridges. There are “six modelling approaches employed by researchers” and these
are listed below. The most popular methods are listed first.
• Winkler spring approach

• Finite element analysis/monolithic approach
• Integrated modelling (developed finite element analysis approach)
• Partitioned analysis (treating the structure and soil separately)
• Staggered approach
• Iterative coupling (Staggered approach but computing works simultaneously)
Modelling the piles as a cantilever is said to be unreliable Dicleli & Erhan (2010) however
Lehane, Keogh, & O'Brien (1999) seem to provide a solution which is comparable to the
accuracy of a finite element analysis approach solely using frames and springs. This method
is comparable to the numerical method set out by ICE (2008), shown graphically in Figure 7.
Amirahmad & Al-Sinaidi (2013) used FEA (Finite Element Analysis) technques to analyse an
integral bridge and found that significant rotations occur in the abutment walls and also a
decrease in moment and stress in the piles.
15
3.41 Modelling cyclic loading of backfill and soil structure interaction
A method of analysing the soil-structure interaction is to complete the two elements of the
design separately; the soil in an FEA soils retaining wall program such as WALLAP or FREW
and the structure analysis in a program such as LUSAS or MIDAS etc. By completing them
separately the interaction between the soil and the structure does not have to be linear and
therefore produces a more exact answer. But Nicholson (1998, p. 11) suggests that by
adding the complexity of using an external program to analyse the interaction, errors are very
likely to occur and it is better to use the structural programs. Due to this only MIDAS Civil 3D
is used to model the entire bridge including the soil interaction.
Fennema, Laman, & Linzell (2005) validated the use of p-y curves to analyse the soil
springs. However due to its complication, the method is not included in this modelling project.
3.42 Modelling examples
Nicholson (1998) includes an example prestressed integral bridge calculation. This can be
refered to for comparison of results in displacement of acute angle as well as tension within a
given pile.
MIDAS also provide video based assistance through their website. They have produced an
example of modelling an integral bridge (MIDAS, 2013). In order to guarantee quality
assurance the bridge made should be compared to their model in terms of the results.
16
3.43 Modelling backfills
Soil is a very typical material to model in a structures based program due to the parameters
that are able to be measured. Within MIDAS Civil 3D the soil parameters needed for a
cohesive and granular materials are shown below. The values needed were collated from the
design manual for MIDAS Civil 3D (MIDAS, n.d.).
Table 5 - Soil parameters required by MIDAS Civil 3D for SSI of an integral bridge
Soil Type Earth Coefficient Internal Initial Soil ½ Strain Undrained

Pressure of Angle of Modulus at Max Cohesion
Coefficient Subgrade Friction (k1) Stress (kN/m2)
(k0) Reaction (φ) (kN/m3) (Triaxial
(kh) Test)
(e50)
Granular
Soils
Cohesive
Soils
Denotes
Denotesrequired
requiredvalue
value
Denotes non-required value
17
4. Methodology
From the literature review conducted, the area of uncertainty that has been highlighted is the
affect that skew of integral bridges has on the stresses within the abutment wall and piling.
Therefore a detailed grillage analysis through the use of MIDAS Civil 3D was used to change
the skew of a 40m single spanning integral bridge. This was in order to find a critical angle of
skew for integral bridges. This method was chosen as it allows direct comparison with other
technical reports as well as it being an achievable aim. The risk assessment and ethics
review conducted for this project are shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively.
4.1 Procedure
Models of integral bridges with skews ranging between 0° and 45° were produced and
compared. The soil surrounding the piles was also compared in parallel to the skew in order
to achieve a more average overall picture.
The exact method for constructing an integral bridge as a computer model was based upon
an online video tutorial (MIDAS, 2013). This covers most of the exact procedure however
there are some constant values that are different. Details of the bridge designed within this
procedure are shown below:
• Single Span • Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC)

Bridge Type
• Entire Bridge
o Slabs
o Width: 10.5m
 Width: 3.5m
o Length: 40m
 Depth: 0.25m
• 40MPa Concrete
o 4 I-Beams (Symmetrical)
• Steel Grade 355
 Height of Web: 1m
• 4 H Piled foundations (HP 250 x 85)
 Thickness of Web:
• Frame based abutment design
0.02m
 Width of Flange: 0.5m
 Thickness of Flange:
0.005m
18
This bridge detailing results in the model as shown below:
Figure 8 - A general view of the finalised model (Sand at 0° skew)
The three different soils analysed within this method are:
• Sand
• Soft Clay
• Stiff Clay
4.11 Soil Parameters
The general soil values required by MIDAS are shown below:
Diameter of Pile = 0.4m

Unit Weight of Soil = 19 kN/m3
The unit weight is a typical value for most soils, and the diameter of the pile is an
approximation of the space needed for housing a HP 250 X 85 pile.
Other values required by the program are soil specific. The values shown in Table 6 were
either found or calculated from a variety of sources.
19
Table 6 - Constant soil values input into MIDAS Civil 3D
Soil Earth Coefficient Internal Initial ½ Strain at Undrained

Type Pressure of Angle of Soil Max Stress Cohesion
Coefficient Subgrade Friction Modulus (Triaxial (kN/m2)
(k0) Reaction (φ) (k1) Test) (e50)
(kh) (kN/m3)
Sand 0.5 64000 30° 33930 N/A N/A
Soft
0.4 12000 N/A N/A 0.002 20
Clay
Stiff
0.4 24000 N/A N/A 0.005 75
Clay
4.111 Earth Pressure Coefficients
All of the earth pressure values were found within the MIDAS database and so these values
are used within this method.
4.112 Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
The values used for the coefficient of subgrade reaction within this model are estimated from
the ranges given in Anonymous (N.D.). This comes from a dubious source however as there
are not specific soil examples able to be classified and it suits expected values built within
the program, they are deemed to be reasonably accurate and acceptable for this
methodology.
4.113 Internal Angle of Friction
As only granular materials within MIDAS can have an internal angle of friction, the value for
sand of 30° was taken from the typical properties of sand (Stanford University, N.D.). This is
also a typically accepted value and the value suggested by the program.
4.114 Initial Soil Modulus
This value was taken from within MIDAS Civil 3D .Its value is based on the word “dense”
when describing the “compactness” of the sand.
20
4.115 ½ Strain at Max Stress
This value requires a set of data acquired from a triaxial test. However, not having specific
details about each soil type or a soil to test, this value was calculated from finding both the
Youngs Modulus and the yield strength of the material and halving the result. The values
shown in Table 7 are taken from Anonymous (N.D.).
Table 7 - Values for calculation of 1/2 Strain at Max Stress value for stiff and soft clay
Material Yield Strength Youngs Modulus

(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Soft Clay 0.1 25
Stiff Clay 0.4 40
The validity of these values is questionable, however when comparing it to average values
built into MIDAS Civil 3D, they are within an acceptable range for this soil parameter.
4.116 Undrained Cohesion
The values for both stiff and soft clay were taken from Craig’s Soil Mechanics (Craig, 2004,
p. 110).
21
4.12 Backfill Specification
The soil/earth pressure behind the embankment has the

following values:
Constant Intensity (PO) = 2 kN/m2

Gradient Intensity (q) = 10 kN/m3
This results in a hydrostatic pressure as shown in Figure

9. These values were used based on the MIDAS online
support video (MIDAS, 2013). It was assumed sensible
and was used as a constant set of values within this
procedure.
4.13 Loading Cases
In order to ensure the validity of the results and trends,

the loadings applied to the bridge need to be constant.
Therefore set loadings were determined before the
Figure 9 – Constant earth pressure
construction of the models. These were as follows: applied to abutment wall
• Self-weight
o -1 unit in the z direction
• Parapet load
o 20 kN/m
• Wet concrete load
• Temperature load
o Calculated through MIDAS
 A temperature change of 15° (Change from 15° to 30°)
• Earth pressure on abutment
o As shown in Figure 9 and 4.12
All of these load cases were applied to each of the models and the results produced are
dependent on all of these forces combined. These loading cases were chosen as the
constants as they are simple and easy to replicate on a large scale, therefore reducing
errors.
22
4.14 Span Length Consistency
When creating the bridges and their reflective models, in order to keep the span length the
same, the coordinate of the opposite abutment would change due to the skew amount. A
table of values calculating the different coordinates used is shown in appendix 4.
4.2 Justification
4.21 Program Choice
MIDAS Civil 3D was chosen due to its accessibility in the university environment, as well as
its ease of use and amount of support available online should problems have arisen. It also
includes a function to model the soil structure interaction using an array of both linear and
nonlinear springs. This helps simplify the process of adding each spring per metre depth of
piling. It adds compression only lateral springs and vertical springs are modelled as elastic
springs. The particular function was created in accordance with the findings of Cosgrove &
Lehane (2003).
This program also produces stress contours. These allow an evaluation of the movement of
stress within a structure with respect to a changing variable. In this instance the changing
variable is the skew of the deck.
Typical force, moment and stress values at given positions (nodes) are also part of the
program, which were used to create trends and estimate a critical angle.
4.22 Bridge Specification
The span of 40m was chosen as it is an acceptable length for current bridge specifications
set out by BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003) and ensures that any changes in the
bridge with length above 60m are not included in this analysis.
The H pile (HP 250x85) was chosen as it links in to Dicleli & Albhaisi (2004), as an averagely
performing pile in both warm and cold climates. Also values for this pile are available both in
MIDAS Civil 3D and also easily accessible elsewhere.
The frame based abutment allows the model to be able to analyse both a foundation and
abutment wall with respect to rotation and stress. This is important when looking to find a
critical angle for integral bridge design as it considers the worst response of these two
elements.
23
There are a couple of popular methods of constructing a bridge integrally with the abutments;
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete. Benhaim (2008) suggests that prestressed
integral conrete bridges deflect more due to temperature, creep and shrinkage in comparison
to reinforced concrete sections. In this instance, due to understanding and simplicity within
the modelling process, a reinforced concrete section is used. It is however recognised that
the defections found in this model will be less than a prestressed concrete model.
Figure 10 – Cross section idealisation of the reinforced concrete integral bridge model
All other aspects of the bridge were taken from (MIDAS, 2013), as these features are typical
for a composite concrete bridge and in this method solely act as a constant value.
4.3 Modelling Limitations

Generally H piles when used within integral abutments
have plastic sleeves wrapped around them in order to
allow a greater flexibility and therefore less stress acting
on the abutment wall. This was however not built into the
models due to lack of knowledge of the program. This
process would have reduced the SSI by not disturbing the
soil when the piles “flex” as the load is applied (SCI, 2010,
Figure 11 – Sleeves used around steel
p. 110). This would then have reduced the amount of H piles. Taken from
(SCI, 2010, p. 110)
stress in the abutment wall and also the displacement of it.
By using these sleeves there is also a reduced risk of corrosion of the steel.
24
In addition to the lack of sleeves within the design, the only boundaries within the models are
applied from the SSI of the piles against the main soil on the site. Therefore there is no
resistance at the base of the pile and this results in a vertical displacement. This is what is
classed as a friction pile. This causes less stress to be transferred to the abutment wall and
to the bending moment of the pile.
Integral bridges are also primarily built in the colder portion of a yearly cycle. This is in order
to allow the bridge to only expand after construction and this simplifies the design process.
The program does not directly accommodate this concept within its calculations, although the
temperature change from 15° to 30° infers the time of construction.
25
5. Results
Detailed numerical results are shown in appendix 3. This includes all data that was used to
create graphs for this section.
5.1 Overview of Model

The model was set out with the origin (0, 0, 0) being one corner at the top of the bridge deck.
The axes were set as a default within the program and they were as follows:
• The x axis was set as the longitudinal direction.

• The y axis was set as the transverse direction.
• The z axis was set as the vertical direction.
This is all reflected in Figure 12 shown below.
Figure 12 – Position of origin and direction of axes
The critical area of the integral abutment was found to be the corner where the abutment
connects to the pile (acute corner). The coordinate of this point is (0, 0, -5). This is known
within the model as “node 21” and this is highlighted in Figure 13. Due to symmetry the
opposite bridge abutment would also have the same stresses, however this point’s
coordinate varies through all models due to the skew being applied. Therefore it would be
more difficult to analyse this point.
26
Figure 13 – Location of node 21 on the abutment wall.
Figure 14 – Location of element 16 and node 21 on the abutment wall.
The general plate stress view of a 0° integral bridge in sand is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15 - General view of the stress in a 0° skew integral bridge in sand with the deformity checkbox ticked
27
5.2 Abutment Stress Contours
The following contour diagrams represent the change in tension (blue) compared to the
compression (red). In this the tension moves from the middle to the right hand side of the
abutment towards node 21 (acute corner) and then lifts up between 30° and 45°. This is the
case for all soil conditions.
5.21 Sand
0 degree skew
15 degree skew
30 degree skew
45 degree skew
Figure 16 – Abutment wall stress contours for Sand.
28
5.22 Soft Clay
0 degree skew
15 degree skew
30 degree skew
45 degree skew
Figure 17 - Abutment wall stress contours for Soft Clay.
29
5.23 Stiff Clay
0 degree skew
15 degree skew
30 degree skew
45 degree skew
Figure 18 - Abutment wall stress contours for Stiff Clay
30
5.3 Top of Pile Results
Moment in y Direction (Node 21)

Sand Stiff Clay Soft Clay
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Moment (kNm)
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-200
-400
-600
Bridge Skew Angle (degrees)
Figure 19 – Graph of moment in the y direction against skew angle (node 21).
This graph represents the bending moment moving transversely across the bridge, at node
21. This shows the trend for the top of the pile moving from compression to tension for each
of the three geological strata as the skew angle of the bridge increases.
31
Moment in z Direction (Node 21)
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.2
-0.4
Moment (kNm)
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
Figure 20 - Graph of moment in the z direction against skew angle (node 21).
This graph represents the bending moment vertically at node 21. This shows the trend for the
top of the pile moving from no bending moment into tension for each of the three geological
strata as the skew angle of the bridge increases.
32
Resultant Displacement (Node 21)
Sand Soft Clay Stiff Clay
1.80E-01
1.60E-01
1.40E-01
1.20E-01
Displacement (m)
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
6.00E-02
4.00E-02
2.00E-02
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 21 - Graph of resultant displacement against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the resultant displacement against the skew angle of the bridge. This
displacement is taken from node 21. These trendlines show a positive correlation with
varying values of gradient depending on the soil strata.
33
Displacement in y Direction (Node 21)
2.00E-02
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2.00E-02
-4.00E-02
Displacement (m)
-6.00E-02
-8.00E-02
-1.00E-01
-1.20E-01
-1.40E-01
Figure 22 - Graph of y directional displacement against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the displacement in the transverse direction against the skew angle of the
bridge. This displacement is taken from node 21. These trendlines show a negative
correlation with varying values of gradient depending on the soil strata.
34
Displacement in x Direction (Node 21)
1.20E-01
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
6.00E-02
4.00E-02
Displacement (m)
2.00E-02
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2.00E-02
-4.00E-02
-6.00E-02
Figure 23 - Graph of x directional displacement against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the displacement in the longitudinal direction against the skew angle of the
bridge. This displacement is taken from node 21. These trendlines show the general trend of
displacement moving from negative to positive. This is reflective of expansion and
contraction of the deck.
35
Displacement in z Direction (Node 21)
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2.00E-03
-4.00E-03
-6.00E-03
Displacement (m)
-8.00E-03
-1.00E-02
-1.20E-02
-1.40E-02
Figure 24 - Graph of z directional displacement against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the displacement in the vertical direction against the skew angle of the
bridge. This displacement is taken from node 21. These trendlines show fairly similar values
for most angles of skew.
36
5.4 Abutment Acute Corner Results
YY Stress in Element 16 (Node 21)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Stress (kN/m2)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
Figure 25 - Graph of stress in the y direction against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the stress in the transverse direction against the skew angle of the bridge.
This stress is taken from the bottom of node 21. These trendlines show the general trend of
stress moving from compression to tension with the trendlines for each strata following a
similar pattern.
37
XX Stress in Element 16 (Node 21)
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stress (GPa)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Figure 26 - Graph of stress in the x direction against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the stress in the longitudinal direction against the skew angle of the bridge.
This stress is taken from the bottom of node 21. These trendlines show the general trend of
stress moving from compression to tension.
38
XY Stress in Element 16 (Node 21)
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stress (kN/m2)
-500
-1000
-1500
Figure 27 - Graph of stress in the x-y direction against skew angle (node 21)
This graph shows the stress in the XY direction against the skew angle of the bridge. This
stress is taken from the bottom of node 21. These trendlines show the general trend of stress
moving from compression to tension with the trendlines. This is the direction in which the
bridge is skewed towards.
39
6. Discussion
6.1 General Abutment Stress Contour Analysis
The abutment stresses reflected in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18 highlight the
movement of the stresses within the abutment as the skew angle of the bridge increases.
This shows that tension is created in and around the acute corner. The position of this corner
with respect to a plan view of a skewed bridge is shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28 - Location of the acute corner from the stress contours.
Soft clay, in an aesthetic view, seems to be applying the least pressure onto the abutment
wall through the skew ranges of 0° - 45° and this seems consistent with the research already
conducted. This is as soft clay is a lightweight material and this feature of the material
causes it to apply less restrictive movement onto the piles, causing less stress in the
abutment wall. This seems very consistent with the literature review as many reports have
been written with regard to finding materials that reduce the unit weight of a material behind
an abutment wall. However in this situation the material directly behind the abutment wall is
constant but the material acting on the piles is different. Therefore it does not directly
correlate as the soil is acting in a different area of the abutment, but it provides good
evidence to support the argument that lightweight soils around the integral bridge will cause
less stress.
40
Stiff clay in general seems to be the worst for applying pressure onto the abutment wall. This
is shown through the large areas in blue which represent tension. In these contours, as the
skew angle increases, the tension does not seem to move but rather spread out in
comparison to the other two soil types. This is due to the amount of friction being placed on
the piles from the varying soil types, restricting their movement and therefore adding more
tension into the abutment wall.
Between 30° and 45°, the tension also seems to be lifting up from the base of the abutment
wall. This phenomena can cause problems for the design stages and this should be taken
note of.
There seems to be no correlation found however with Amirahmad & Al-Sinaidi (2013) who
state that a reduction in stress occurs in the pile/abutment in comparison to the rest of the
bridge.
6.2 Pile Analysis
6.21 Pile Moment
The change in moment in the y direction of the bridge, with respect to the different soil types,
shows how the moment within the top of the pile changes from compression to tension
between the ranges of 25° - 30°. The table below represents the lines’ equations and their x
intercept value for the angle of skew in which the moment is equal to zero.
Table 8 - A table representing the angle of skew at which the moment reaches the point of contraflexure.
Equation of trendline X Intercept (degrees)
Sand y = -0.001x4 + 0.1049x3 - 25.9°

2
3.0878x - 16.593x + 1128.6
Soft Clay y = -0.0007x4 + 0.0888x3 - 26.9°

2
3.1455x - 4.3599x + 1029.9
Stiff Clay y = -0.0008x4 + 0.0917x3 - 28.7°

2.9525x2 - 9.3161x + 1074.9
The skew value where compression in the pile converts into tension is not detrimental for the
functionality of the element, but represents an “uplifting” movement in the connection
between the abutment wall and foundation. Within this model this vertical movement would
not add significant stress onto the abutment wall as the base of the pile is not restrained.
41
These results correlate with research already undertaken as the soft clay performs the best
due to its’ low unit weight in comparison to the other two soils. The definition of “best” in this
instance, is the material that starts lifting up at the largest skew. This contradicts with Carder
& Hayes (2000) who state that softer clays are detrimental for integral construction but this is
only for shallow foundations.
6.22 Pile Displacement
In comparison, Figure 21 shows that soft clay does not seem to be an appropriate soil
material to use. For example at 30° of skew, the resultant displacement is around 10cm. This
model does not take into account traffic loading on the structure so it is safe to assume that
this value will increase beyond this point. This amount of movement is not suitable for any
type of expansion joint to connect the bridge to the linking roads. This needs to be a major
consideration when designing integral bridges as even with both the other soil types, the
displacement is greater than what would be deemed acceptable.
This is more obvious when looking specifically in the displacement in the x directional graph
of this particular model (Figure 23), where initially this part of the bridge expands (pushes
against the backfill) but then at around 15° of skew, it then starts to pull back inwards. The
“pushing out” is shown in Figure 29. This expansion and contraction creates a void that either
a granular or artificial backfill would be required to accommodate. This finding supports the
research undertaken into different material use behind integral abutments in order to behave
elastically and accommodate the movement of the bridge abutments.
Generally when looking at the resultant displacement graph (Figure 21), initially the total
displacement seems to decrease on smaller skews. This is because of the nature of the
displacement in the x direction to move from negative to positive, creating the notion that the
total displacement initially decreases. The graphs for displacements in the y and z directions
(Figure 22 and Figure 23) do not change direction and this verifies the suggestion that the
decrease in resultant displacement is due to the contraction of the deck.
With reference to the methodology, there is no indication of vertical movement of the pile
even though it has no end conditions. This is shown in Figure 24. Therefore this lack of fixity
is shown to be beneficial to the stress on the abutment wall. However more research would
need to be undertaken to look into the effect of restricting this foundation’s vertical movement
in comparison to using only friction piles.
42
In direct comparison to Nicholson (1998), the deflection amount in the x direction of the
models fits in the same range as the design example for 0° skews, validating this result to a
certain extent.
Figure 29 - Displacement “deformed” image for 0 degree skew sand model (“Pushing out”)
43
6.3 Abutment Analysis
The abutment stresses in all three varying directions (Figure 25, Figure 26 and Figure 27), all
show the same correlation with respect to suggesting that there is initially compression in this
region of the structure, that later becomes tension. This directly correlates with the stress
contour figures.
6.31 X Directional Stress
The x direction stress graph (Figure 26) shows that the angle of skew in which the stress
changes nature, is between 16° and 20°. The exact angles for each of the strata types in
terms of a quartic expression are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 - Calculating the x intercept for X directional stress
Sand y = -0.0006x4 + 0.082x3 - 16.7°

3.0888x2 - 33.813x + 1092.1
Soft Clay y = -0.0001x4 + 0.05x3 - 19.0°

2.9369x2 - 7.6176x + 874.42
Stiff Clay y = -0.0005x4 + 0.0733x3 - 19.3°

3.2994x2 - 12.689x + 1017.5
From Table 9 both the clay strata perform better than the sand in this direction with respect
to stress. This could be due to the weight of the material that is resisting the movement, with
sand having a much greater weight than the other soil types. It could also be due to internal
friction of the soil which implies it will create bigger resistance to movement (Steele &
Snowdon, 1996).
44
6.32 Y Directional Stress
The y direction stress, reflected in Figure 25, shows an x intercept range between the values
of 18° and 20°.
Table 10 - Calculating the x intercept for Y directional stress
Sand y = -0.0029x4 + 0.2982x3 - 18.2°

8.8045x2 - 35.609x + 2089.3
Soft Clay y = -0.0021x4 + 0.2515x3 - 18.7°

2
8.8783x - 7.2734x + 1857.7
Stiff Clay y = -0.0023x4 + 0.2577x3 - 19.6°

2
8.2493x - 19.517x + 1946.4
The range of these values is significantly smaller than the x directional stress however the
performance of stiff clay is much higher in direct comparison to the soft clay.
All of these strata perform similarly and therefore it is suggested that the soil conditions have
little substantial impact on the transverse directional stress. This is due to the orientation of
the piling as suggested by (Dicleli, Eng, & Albhaisi, 2003) with this direction being more rigid
for the piling.
45
6.33 XY Directional Stress
The combination of stress in the direction of the skew creates x intercept values as follows.
These values are taken from Figure 27. The values range from 15° to 18°.
Table 11 - Calculating the x intercept for XY directional stress
Sand y = -0.0005x4 + 0.0631x3 - 15.3°

1.9828x2 - 40.3x + 885.14
Soft Clay y = -0.0002x4 + 0.0444x3 - 17.3°

2
2.0701x - 18.923x + 732.27
Stiff Clay y = -0.0004x4 + 0.0588x3 - 17.5°

2
2.197x - 24.984x + 831.68
The stress in this direction produces the lowest angles. This is most likely due to the fact that
this is the direction in which the skew increases.
Stiff clay and soft clay perform similarly for this directional stress. As they are both similar
with respect to their bearing capacity this could be seen as the reason for this trend. It could
be suggested that the type of soil, either granular or cohesive, have different effects on the
critical angle of an integral bridge.
46
6.4 Critical Angle Estimations
The critical angle for this bridge would be the angle at which the performance of the concrete
abutment would need to be considered. In this instance it will occur when the angle of skew
causes too much tension within the abutment wall. The critical angle calculations from the
moment value at the top of the pile are a lot higher than the stress values. Due to this, the
critical angle suggested of around 25° from the moment calculations should not have any
effect as the concrete will fail in tension due to stress before the steel pile fails. Therefore, as
the strength of concrete in compression is vastly superior to its tensile strength, the point at
which the stress graphs cross the x axis is the point at which the critical angle would need to
be estimated from.
Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 show the angles at which the stress changes from
compressive to tensile stress. Assuming the least flexible soil conditions, the critical angle for
the stress in both the x and the y direction would be 15.3° for sand conditions and 17° for
clay. However considering angles up to 30° are considered normal, this value is very low.
Due to the fact that concrete’s tensile strength is generally no lower than 10% of its
compressive strength, the same percentage past the x intercept should also be considered.
This would therefore suggest a critical angle for the abutment at around 20° for sand, which
is not normally found as the site conditions for many bridges, and between 22° and 23° for
both stiff and soft clay.
All of the aforementioned does not consider the use of reinforcement within the concrete
abutment design. By having reinforcement the value of this critical angle could be
substantially higher.
These results also do not have a comparison between types of integral construction.
Benhaim (2008) shows how prestress concrete bridges deflect more and therefore the critical
angle for this type of bridge will vary from the one proposed from this methodology.
6.5 Comparisons to BA 42/96 and PD 6694-1

The models generally show how as the skew increases, the twisting and stress applied onto
the abutment wall also increases and this correlates with findings shown in PD 6694-1 (BSI,
2011).
BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003) suggests that, for granular soils, the skew amount
automatically considered for the bridge to be integral to the abutments is 30°. All graphs
produced for this report show no significant change in gradient after this point even though at
this point the majority of one side of the abutment is in tension. But the movement of the
47
tension up the abutment after 30° of skew compares well with the limits set out by BA 42/96
(The Highways Agency, 2003). These findings are reflected through the stress contours.
The potential movement of tension could cause complications in the design process.
6.6 Variability and Errors
6.61 Calculation Checks
As there are not any results based on the same type of methodology, it is difficult to ascertain
the validity of the computer models and the results that they present. Due to this it is fairly
difficult to suggest whether these results are accurate and represent the changes in stress
with respect to skew accordingly. But these results have similar values to both Nicholson
(1998) and MIDAS’ own model of an integral bridge (MIDAS, 2013), albeit the exact values
input into the system are different.
Errors can also form from the use of computer programs themselves and therefore the
reliability of MIDAS Civil 3D could be brought into question. Though many consultancies rely
on the use of this program which they cross check with hand calculations. Due to this the
program is deemed to be trustworthy.
6.62 Parallax/Human Error
As with any computer program, an error could have arisen through inputting the data. This is
evident in the 17° skew models which do not follow the trendline of the other points across all
of the graphs. By using trendlines this error was made obvious and due to this was excluded
from the results of estimating a critical angle.
6.7 Limitations of Work

By not having exact soil parameter values, or a physical soil sample, for all the different soil
variables within this method, exact evaluations of the impact that each have on integral
bridges cannot be examined and the current results are only general evaluations on each. If
physical soil samples and their respective soil parameters were used, a more realistic
trendline would be generated for each soil type.
This is also a similar problem with the backfill pressures, which in this instance was kept as a
constant in the method. By having innovative backfill parameters available to physically test,
more results could have been ascertained as to the effectiveness of artificial backfills in
comparison to traditional granular backfills.
48
Within the program, strain ratcheting and K* cannot be directly modelled and therefore no
direct comparison can be made to existing expected trends over time. If this type of
parameter was built into such a program, the current gaps in research, in terms of the effect
that backfill has on integral abutments over time, would be more easily filled. It would also
allow for a more direct comparison to the results found by England, Tsang, & Bush (2000).
By only using a program that bases its results on an FEA library, a full FEA cannot be
undertaken and therefore not many comparisons can be made to other projects. In addition
to this aspect, as the soil was only modelled as linear and elastic springs, a true SSI could
not be emulated and compared to other reports.
49
7. Conclusion
7.1 Literature Review Summary
From the literature review, it is clear that there is no evidence as to why integral bridges are
not being built more often. A large amount of research has been completed on the topics of
abutment and backfill designs, in which artificial materials are being heavily examined as to
whether they provide any additional performance enhancements. The time-temperature
loading phenomena has been examined by England, Tsang, & Bush (2000) and others, and
these reports highlight the problems with granular backfills over the life cycle of the bridge.
Overall it is clear that the long term performance of integral abutments needs to be
researched more. As evidenced by the case studies discussed, integral bridges of all varying
types seem to be performing well and there seems to be no critical reason as to why they are
not being built more often.
7.2 Result and Discussion Conclusions

Models for different skews (0° – 45°) and soil conditions (sand, soft clay and stiff clay) were
made in MIDAS Civil 3D and the conclusions from these are shown below:
• The tension around the acute corner lifts when the skew is greater than the 30° limit
set out by BA 42/96 causing complication within the design. This therefore verifies
this design guide and the acute corner problem suggested in PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011).
• A critical angle of skew for integral bridges range between 20° and 23° although an
exact amount is hard to determine as different soil conditions occur in different
locations.
• Sand has the most detrimental effect on an integral abutment due to its resistance to
flex with the increasing skew.
• It is difficult to choose soils for use with integral bridges as their different parameters
can be detrimental to the bridge in different ways.
• Not having a pile cap at the base of the foundation to restrict vertical movement is
beneficial to the stress in the abutment wall.
7.21 British Design Guide Modifications
Comparing the results directly to BA 42/96 (The Highways Agency, 2003), the 30° limit is
supported as the tension does start to lift up from the base of the abutment wall after this
point and due to this will cause problems in design. This therefore also supports the findings
from PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011). From this it is suggestible that the guide continue to be
acknowledged as accurate.
50
7.3 Further work
7.31 Effectiveness of Artificial Backfills
The effect of different backfill elements on the abutment wall should be looked into to
evaluate the effectiveness of such materials on reducing the stress within the abutment wall.
This would then be comparable to existing bridge case studies and further opportunities to
improve abutment flexibility would be easier to identify.
7.32 Correctly Modelling SSI
In order for better research to be made into the longer term performance of integral bridge
abutments, a more precise model of how the soil and structure interacts should be
determined.
7.33 Comparison of Integral Bridge Types
Comparing different integral bridge types, prestressed concrete and composite concrete
sections, would be beneficial to designers and researchers in order to find an optimum type
for various site requirements.
7.34 Time-Temperature and Bridge Life Cycle Performance
Modelling the effect of time-temperature loading, both physically and through computer
modelling, would also be beneficial for suggesting the serviceable life cycle of such a bridge.
This work has been mostly completed by England, Tsang, & Bush (2000) however more
physical case studies of the performance of integral bridges, and in particular the reaction of
the backfill, will help validate these results and encourage the more prominant use of the
integral bridge type.
7.35 Views on Integral Bridges in Industry
A research could be conducted into current views in the industry of using integral bridges as
a primary bridge design for short to medium spans. This could be through the use of
interviews or questionnaires. By undertaken this research reasons other than practicality for
the construction of integral bridges could be found.
51
7.36 Effect of Restricting Vertical Movement in Integral Abutments
Using friction piles instead of foundations with pile caps should be investigated as the results
found as part of this investigation suggest that by not having a restriction of movement in the
vertical plane, the displacement and as a consequence the stress in the abutment is less.
52
8.0 References
AASHTO. (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications (4th ed.). Washington D.C.:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Abendroth, R. E., Greimann, L. F., & La Violette, M. D. (2007). An Integral Abutment Bridge
with Precast Concrete Piles. Ames: CTRE.
Ahn, J.-H., Yoon, J.-H., Kim, J.-H., & Kim, S.-H. (2011). Evaluation on the behavior of
abutment-pile connection in integral abutment bridge. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 67, 1134-1148.
Amirahmad, A., & Al-Sinaidi, A. R. (2013). Analysis of Integral Bridges by Finite Element
Method. Procedia Engineering 54, 308-314.
Anonymous. (n.d.). Appendix C - Properties of Soil. Retrieved from SEF India:

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/files/appc_soil_properties_718.pdf
Barker, K. J., & Carder, D. R. (2000). Performance of the two integral bridges forming the
A62 Manchester Road Overbridge. Crowthorne: TRL.
Barker, K. J., & Carder, D. R. (2001). Performance of an integral bridge over the M1-A1 Link
Road at Bramham Crossroads. Crowthorne: TRL.
Barker, K. J., & Carder, D. R. (2006). Performance of stress absorbing layers behind the
abutments of Mount Pleasant flyover. Crowthorne: TRL.
Benhaim, R. (2008). Prestressed Concrete Bridges: Concepts and Principles. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Brenner, B. R., Sanayei, M., Bell, E. S., Rosenstrauch, P. L., Pheifer, E. J., & Marr, W. A.
(n.d.). The Influence of Temperature Changes on Bridge Structural Behavior.
BSI. (2003). BS EN 1992 Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. London: BSI Standards Limited.
BSI. (2005). BS EN 1992 Part 2: Concrete bridges - Design and detailing rules. London: BSI
Standards Limited.
BSI. (2006). BS EN 1993 Part 2: Steel bridges. London: BSI Standards Limited.
BSI. (2011). PD 6694-1. London: BSI Standards Publications.
53
Carder, D. R., & Card, G. B. (1993). A literature review of the geotechnical aspects of the
design of integral bridge abutments. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Carder, D. R., & Card, G. B. (1997). Innovative structural backfills to integral bridge
abutments. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Carder, D. R., & Hayes, J. P. (2000). Performance under cyclic loading of the foundations of
integral bridges. Crowthorne: TRL.
Carder, D. R., Darley, P., & Bush, D. I. (2002). Specification for suitability testing of stress
absorbing materials behind integral bridge abutments. Crowthorne: TRL.
CBDG. (2010). Integral Concrete Bridges to Eurocode 2. Eynsham: Information Press LTD.
Civjan, S. A., Kalayci, E., Quinn, B. H., Breña, S. F., & Allen, C. A. (2013). Observed integral
abutment bridge substructure response. Engineering Structures 56, 1177-1191.
Constructed Facilities Center, College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia
University. (2005). Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges. Baltimore: FHWA.
Cosgrove, E. F., & Lehane, B. M. (2003). Cyclic Loading of Loose Backfill Placed Adjacent
To Integral Bridge Abutments. In IJPMG - International Journal of Physial Modelling in
Geotechnics 3 (pp. 9-16).
Craig, R. F. (2004). Craig's Soil Mechanics (7th ed.). London: Spon Press.
Darley, P., Carder, D. R., & Alderman, G. H. (1996). Seasonal Thermal Effects on the
Shallow Abutment of an Integral Abutment Bridge in Glasgow. Crowthorne: TRL.
David, T. K., & Forth, J. P. (2011). Modelling of Soil Structure Interaction of Integral
Abutment Bridges. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology S4, 769-
774.
Davies, L., Kucki, T., Fry, C., & Bull, J. (n.d.). Retrieved from Atkins:
http://www.atkinsglobal.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-
Global/Attachments/sectors/roads/library-docs/technical-journal-7/104%20-
%20Lightweight%20backfill%20materials%20in%20integral%20bridge%20constructio
n.pdf
54
Dicleli, M., & Albhaisi, S. M. (2004). Effect of cyclic thermal loading on the performance of
steel H-piles in integral bridges with stub-abutments. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 60, 161-182.
Dicleli, M., & Erhan, S. (2010). Effect of soil-bridge interaction on the magnitude of internal
forces in integral abutment bridge components due to live load effects. Engineering
Structures 32, 129-145.
Dicleli, M., Eng, P., & Albhaisi, S. M. (2003). Maximum length of integral bridges supported
on steel H-piles driven in sand. Engineering Structures 25, 1491-1504.
England, G. L., & Tsang, N. C. (2001). Towards the Design of Soil Loading for Integral
Bridges. Camberley: Concrete Bridge Development Group.
England, G. L., Tsang, N. C., & Bush, D. I. (2000). Integral Bridges - A Fundamental
Approach To The Time-Temperature Problem. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
Fennema, J. L., Laman, J. A., & Linzell, D. G. (2005). Predicted and Measured Response of
an Integral Abutment Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 666-677.
Hambly, E. C. (1997). Integral Bridges. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers

Transportation 123, 30-38.
ICE. (2008). ICE Manual of Bridge Engineering (Second edition ed.). (G. Parke, & N.
Hewson, Eds.) London: Thomas Telford Ltd.
Jayaraman, R., Merz, P. B., & Ltd, M. P. (2001). Integral Bridge Concept Applied to
Rehabilitate an Existing Bridge and Construct a Dual-Use Bridge. Singapore: Our
World in Concrete & Structures.
Khodair, Y. A., & Hassiotis, S. (2005). Analysis of Soil-Pile Interaction In Integral Abutment.
Computers and Geotechnics 32, 201-209.
Kim, W., & Laman, J. A. (2010). Integral abutment bridge response under thermal loading.
Engineering Structures 32, 1495-1508.
Kunin, J., & Alampalli, S. (2000). Integral Abutment Bridges: Current Practice in United
States and Canada. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 104-111.
Lehane, B. M., Keogh, D. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1999). Simplified elastic model for restraining
effects of backfill soil on integral bridges. Computers and Structures 73, 303-313.
55
MIDAS. (2013, 09 26). midas Civil tutorial- Single Span Composite Steel Integral Bridge
Design as per Eurocode. Retrieved from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4nJS1JIHw
MIDAS. (n.d.). MIDAS Civil 3D Online Manual. Retrieved 04 06, 2014, from MIDAS Civil 3D
Manual: http://manual.midasuser.com/EN_Common/Civil/830/index.htm
Nicholson, B. A. (1998). Integral Abutments for Prestressed Beam Bridges. Leicester:

Prestressed Concrete Association.
SCI. (2010). P356. Ascot: The Steel Construction Institute.
Soubry, M. (2001). Bridge Detailing Guide. London: CIRIA.
Springman, S. M., & Norrish, A. R. (1996). Cyclic Loading of Sand Behind Integral Bridge
Abutments. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Stanford University. (N.D.). Some Useful Numbers. Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from Stanford
University:
http://www.stanford.edu/~tyzhu/Documents/Some%20Useful%20Numbers.pdf
Steele, D. P., & Snowdon, R. A. (1996). In Situ States of Compaction of Structural Backfill.
Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
The Department of Transport. (1989). The Performance of Concrete in Bridges. London: Her
Majesty's Stationery Office.
The Highways Agency. (1995). (BA 30/87) Backfilled Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments.
London: The Highways Agency.
The Highways Agency. (2001, August). (BA 57/01) Design for Durability. London: The
Highways Agency.
The Highways Agency. (2003, May). (BA 42/96) The Design of Integral Bridges. London: The
Highways Agency.
White II, H., Pétursson, H., & Collin, P. (2010). Integral Abutment Bridges: The European
Way. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction , 201-208.
56
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Ethics Review
57
58
Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment
59
60
Appendix 3 – Detailed Numerical Results
Table 12 - Values for node 21 (Top of pile) for Sand
Degree Skew Displacement x Displacement y Displacement z Resultant Displacement Shear Z Moment y Moment z
(°) (m) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
0 -3.10E-02 -3.73E-05 -4.24E-03 3.13E-02 648.5 1119.9 0
5 -2.61E-02 -9.55E-03 -4.20E-03 2.81E-02 578.8 999.8 -0.1
10 -1.58E-02 -2.62E-02 -4.17E-03 3.09E-02 433.2 751 -0.3
15 -4.38E-03 -3.97E-02 -4.18E-03 4.02E-02 271.6 481.6 -0.5
16 -2.15E-03 -4.18E-02 -4.19E-03 4.21E-02 239.9 429.7 -0.5
17 -3.21E-04 -4.45E-02 -4.19E-03 4.47E-02 197.2 380.1 -0.5
18 2.05E-03 -4.58E-02 -4.19E-03 4.60E-02 179.2 331.2 -0.6
19 4.13E-03 -4.75E-02 -4.21E-03 4.78E-02 149.2 282.8 -0.6
20 6.06E-03 -4.91E-02 -4.20E-03 4.97E-02 121.1 238 -0.6
21 8.00E-03 -5.06E-02 -4.21E-03 5.14E-02 92.7 192.7 -0.6
22 9.85E-03 -5.19E-02 -4.22E-03 5.30E-02 65.3 150.3 -0.6
23 1.16E-02 -5.32E-02 -4.23E-03 5.46E-02 37.9 109.8 -0.6
24 1.33E-02 -5.43E-02 -4.23E-03 5.60E-02 11.6 71 -0.7
25 1.49E-02 -5.51E-02 -4.24E-03 5.73E-02 -15.2 34.3 -0.7
26 1.63E-02 -5.59E-02 -4.25E-03 5.84E-02 -46 -0.7 -0.7
27 1.77E-02 -5.66E-02 -4.25E-03 5.95E-02 -75.1 -33.8 -0.7
28 1.90E-02 -5.71E-02 -4.27E-03 6.04E-02 -103.5 -66.3 -0.7
29 2.04E-02 -5.78E-02 -4.26E-03 6.14E-02 -129.8 -95.7 -0.7
30 2.16E-02 -5.83E-02 -4.27E-03 6.24E-02 -155 -123.8 -0.7
35 2.80E-02 -6.08E-02 -4.30E-03 6.71E-02 -265.8 -251.2 -0.7
40 3.50E-02 -6.36E-02 -4.32E-03 7.27E-02 -341.6 -347.7 -0.8
45 4.26E-02 -6.62E-02 -4.34E-03 7.88E-02 -404.4 -423.5 -0.8
61
Table 13 - Values for node 21 (Top of pile) for Soft Clay
(°) (m) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
0 -4.22E-02 -3.73E-05 -1.14E-02 4.38E-02 480 1027.9 0
5 -3.61E-02 -1.23E-02 -1.13E-02 3.98E-02 442.8 943.3 -0.2
10 -2.29E-02 -3.19E-02 -1.13E-02 4.09E-02 360.1 756.2 -0.4
15 -6.17E-03 -5.16E-02 -1.13E-02 5.32E-02 249.8 518.6 -0.6
16 -2.62E-03 -5.52E-02 -1.14E-02 5.64E-02 225.3 467.5 -0.6
17 4.15E-04 -5.95E-02 -1.14E-02 6.06E-02 188.6 415.5 -0.6
18 4.36E-03 -6.22E-02 -1.14E-02 6.34E-02 178.2 370.9 -0.7
19 7.81E-03 -6.52E-02 -1.14E-02 6.67E-02 153.9 322.1 -0.7
20 1.11E-02 -6.83E-02 -1.14E-02 7.01E-02 130.9 276.7 -0.7
21 1.46E-02 -7.13E-02 -1.14E-02 7.37E-02 106 228.2 -0.8
22 1.81E-02 -7.43E-02 -1.15E-02 7.73E-02 82 181.8 -0.8
23 2.16E-02 -7.73E-02 -1.15E-02 8.11E-02 59 136.7 -0.8
24 2.50E-02 -8.01E-02 -1.15E-02 8.47E-02 35.8 92.5 -0.8
25 2.82E-02 -8.25E-02 -1.15E-02 8.80E-02 12.5 50.4 -0.9
26 3.15E-02 -8.51E-02 -1.16E-02 9.14E-02 -11.4 9.9 -0.9
27 3.46E-02 -8.73E-02 -1.16E-02 9.46E-02 -34.8 -28.6 -0.9
28 3.77E-02 -8.92E-02 -1.17E-02 9.76E-02 -59.7 -67.7 -0.9
29 4.06E-02 -9.11E-02 -1.16E-02 1.00E-01 -85.3 -102.3 -0.9
30 4.36E-02 -9.29E-02 -1.17E-02 1.03E-01 -109.5 -135.4 -0.9
35 5.99E-02 -1.03E-01 -1.18E-02 1.19E-01 -209.5 -289.1 -1
40 7.98E-02 -1.14E-01 -1.20E-02 1.39E-01 -283.4 -414.9 -1.1
45 1.02E-01 -1.24E-01 -1.21E-02 1.61E-01 -332.6 -505.8 -1.2
62
Table 14 - Values for node 21 (Top of pile) for Stiff Clay
(°) (m) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
0 -3.37E-02 -3.75E-05 -6.84E-03 3.44E-02 613.4 1073 0
5 -2.85E-02 -9.91E-03 -6.79E-03 3.10E-02 554.9 969.2 -0.2
10 -1.89E-02 -2.28E-02 -6.76E-03 3.04E-02 443.2 770.3 -0.3
15 -7.95E-03 -7.95E-03 -6.78E-03 3.49E-02 313.8 540 -0.5
16 -5.67E-03 -3.53E-02 -6.81E-03 3.64E-02 286.2 491.7 -0.5
17 -3.93E-03 -3.74E-02 -6.81E-03 3.82E-02 246.4 444.7 -0.5
18 -1.46E-03 -3.89E-02 -6.81E-03 3.95E-02 228 397.9 -0.5
19 7.46E-04 -4.07E-02 -6.84E-03 4.12E-02 198.4 350.4 -0.5
20 2.75E-03 -4.24E-02 -6.83E-03 4.30E-02 170.3 307.6 -0.6
21 4.74E-03 -4.39E-02 -6.84E-03 4.47E-02 141.4 264.1 -0.6
22 6.64E-03 -4.53E-02 -6.85E-03 4.63E-02 113.4 222.9 -0.6
23 8.51E-03 -4.66E-02 -6.86E-03 4.78E-02 86.1 183 -0.6
24 1.03E-02 -4.78E-02 -6.88E-03 4.94E-02 59.8 144.6 -0.6
25 1.20E-02 -4.88E-02 -6.89E-03 5.07E-02 35.2 108.7 -0.6
26 1.37E-02 -5.00E-02 -6.90E-03 5.23E-02 10.7 74 -0.6
27 1.53E-02 -5.09E-02 -6.91E-03 5.36E-02 -14.1 40.9 -0.6
28 1.67E-02 -5.16E-02 -6.95E-03 5.47E-02 -42 7.7 -0.7
29 1.81E-02 -5.24E-02 -6.93E-03 5.59E-02 -67.2 -21.7 -0.7
30 1.95E-02 -5.31E-02 -6.94E-03 5.70E-02 -92 -50.6 -0.7
35 2.65E-02 -5.64E-02 -7.00E-03 6.27E-02 -199.2 -174.1 -0.7
40 3.38E-02 -5.97E-02 -7.05E-03 6.90E-02 -282.1 -268.3 -0.7
45 4.25E-02 -6.36E-02 -7.09E-03 7.68E-02 -347.3 -343.8 -0.8
63
Table 15 – Values for node 21 (abutment stress bottom) for Sand Table 16 – Values for node 21 (abutment stress bottom) for Soft Clay
Degree Stress - X Stress – Y Stress – XY Degree Stress - X Stress – Y Stress – XY

Skew (°) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2) Skew (°) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2)
0 1067.5 2070 866.8 0 863.2 1854.5 723.4
5 911 1768.6 683 5 790.4 1634.3 608.4
10 531.9 1124.8 348.8 10 569.7 1132 389.9
15 125.6 419.3 11.7 15 267.2 489.6 123.9
16 19.8 289.7 -68.2 16 172.2 358.1 50.4
17 -83.5 166.6 -144.5 17 77.1 222.7 -20.9
18 -105.6 21.7 -173.4 18 67.6 88.8 -41.4
19 -210.3 -99.3 -249.8 19 -28.3 -36.2 -112.8
20 -253.7 -226.1 -289.5 20 -65.6 -166.7 -148.6
21 -326.4 -346.5 -345.7 21 -137.5 -298.4 -205.2
22 -396.4 -458.4 -399.4 22 -206.7 -425.1 -259.3
23 -467.2 -564.9 -453 23 -273.1 -548.9 -311
24 -535.1 -666.6 -504.2 24 -340.9 -669.9 -363.2
25 -605.3 -761.4 -556.3 25 -408.8 -783.9 -414.7
26 -688.3 -848.1 -616.5 26 -478.5 -893.2 -467.1
27 -766.7 -930 -673.1 27 -547.3 -996.2 -518.1
28 -872.5 -1004.1 -744.3 28 -648.7 -1095 -588
29 -915.2 -1082.7 -779.9 29 -697.2 -1191 -628.2
30 -983.3 -1152 -828.6 30 -768.1 -1277 -679.6
35 -1293.7 -1470.5 -1050 35 -1068.6 -1691 -898.1
40 -1502.2 -1714 -1197.1 40 -1291.1 -2040 -1058.7
45 -1678.6 -1898.1 -1318.6 45 -1426.9 -2291 -1153.5
64
Table 17 – Values for node 21 (abutment stress bottom) for Stiff Clay
Degree Stress - X Stress – Y Stress – XY

Skew (°) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2) Direction (kN/m2)
0 1012.5 1942.2 826.6
5 891.4 1681.2 669.8
10 630.3 1161.7 417.9
15 326.4 549.2 148.6
16 231.9 427.9 75.8
17 134.8 312.2 3.1
18 111.6 172.7 -27
19 6.5 54.6 -104.3
20 -36.3 -64.7 -143.6
21 -109.7 -177.4 -200.2
22 -181.5 -283.8 -255.1
23 -252.1 -387.4 -308.8
24 -320.6 -487.6 -360.8
25 -383.6 -581.1 -408.3
26 -447.1 -671.9 -456.1
27 -512.5 -757.6 -504.6
28 -617.5 -835.3 -575.8
29 -656.5 -915.3 -609.3
30 -724.1 -988 -658.3
35 -1015.1 -1298 -867.9
40 -1237.7 -1532 -1026.6
45 -1413.7 -1716 -1149.5
65
Appendix 4 – Skew Values
Table 18 - Calculations for skew angle per 5m run
Angle (°) X Direction (m) Y Direction (m)

0 5 0
5 4.9809735 0.4357787
10 4.9240388 0.8682409
15 4.8296291 1.2940952
16 4.8063085 1.3781868
17 4.7815238 1.4618585
18 4.7552826 1.545085
19 4.7275929 1.6278408
20 4.6984631 1.7101007
21 4.6679021 1.7918397
22 4.6359193 1.873033
23 4.6025243 1.9536556
24 4.5677273 2.0336832
25 4.5315389 2.1130913
26 4.4939702 2.1918557
27 4.4550326 2.2699525
28 4.414738 2.3473578
29 4.3730985 2.4240481
30 4.330127 2.5
35 4.0957602 2.8678822
40 3.8302222 3.213938
45 3.5355339 3.5355339
66
View publication stats

An Evaluation of The Effect of Skew On Integral Bridges by Computer Based Grillage Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Evaluation of The Effect of Skew On Integral Bridges by Computer Based Grillage Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

An Evaluation of the Effect of Skew on Integral Bridges by Computer Based

Thesis · January 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... VII

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... VIII

Glossary ............................................................................................................................. VIII

Statement of Originality ........................................................................................................ IX

1.1 What is an integral bridge? ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Why build integral bridges? ..................................................................................... 1

1.3 Limitations of integral bridges .................................................................................. 1

1.4 Report Overview ..................................................................................................... 2

2. Aims and Objectives....................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3

3. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 4

3.1 General/Overview ................................................................................................... 4

3.11 British and European Design Guidelines .............................................................. 4

3.12 American Design Guides ..................................................................................... 4

3.13 Reasoning behind integral bridge limits ............................................................... 5

3.14 Current Integral Bridges (Case Studies) .............................................................. 5

3.2 Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) ................................................................................ 8

3.21 Time-Temperature Loading Problem (TTLP) ....................................................... 8

3.22 Cyclic loading of backfill and abutment ................................................................ 9

3.3 Foundation and Abutment Design ..........................................................................10

3.31 Backfill Design ....................................................................................................10

3.32 Abutment Types .................................................................................................12

3.4 Integral Bridge Modelling ........................................................................................15

3.42 Modelling examples ............................................................................................16

3.43 Modelling backfills...............................................................................................17

4.1 Procedure ..............................................................................................................18

4.11 Soil Parameters ..................................................................................................19

4.12 Backfill Specification ...........................................................................................22

4.13 Loading Cases....................................................................................................22

4.14 Span Length Consistency ...................................................................................23

4.2 Justification ............................................................................................................23

4.21 Program Choice ..................................................................................................23

4.22 Bridge Specification ............................................................................................23

4.3 Modelling Limitations ..............................................................................................24

5.1 Overview of Model .................................................................................................26

5.2 Abutment Stress Contours .....................................................................................28

5.21 Sand ...................................................................................................................28

5.22 Soft Clay .............................................................................................................29

5.23 Stiff Clay .............................................................................................................30

5.3 Top of Pile Results .................................................................................................31

5.4 Abutment Acute Corner Results .............................................................................37

6.1 General Abutment Stress Contour Analysis ...........................................................40

6.2 Pile Analysis ...........................................................................................................41

6.21 Pile Moment........................................................................................................41

6.22 Pile Displacement ...............................................................................................42

6.31 X Directional Stress ............................................................................................44

6.32 Y Directional Stress ............................................................................................45

6.33 XY Directional Stress ..........................................................................................46

6.4 Critical Angle Estimations .......................................................................................47

6.5 Comparisons to BA 42/96 and PD 6694-1 ..............................................................47

6.6 Variability and Errors ..............................................................................................48

6.61 Calculation Checks .............................................................................................48

6.62 Parallax/Human Error .........................................................................................48

6.7 Limitations of Work .................................................................................................48

7.1 Literature Review Summary ...................................................................................50

7.2 Result and Discussion Conclusions........................................................................50

7.21 British Design Guide Modifications .....................................................................50

7.3 Further work ...........................................................................................................51

7.31 Effectiveness of Artificial Backfills .......................................................................51