Integral Bridge Design

CT5125: Steel bridges – file <integral-bridge-design>
16. Integral Bridges
16.1 Characteristics of integral bridges

Because of the natural, seasonal variations in air temperature, and in case of concrete deck the time effects like
creep and shrinkage, the deck structure will change dimension, especially in its longitudinal direction.
As a standard, to allow the bridge structure to move as freely as possible with respect to its abutments, structural
bearings are placed between the superstructure and abutments. Also, to allow longitudinal displacement of the
bridge structure between the fixed abutments, a physical gap,
called an expansion joint, is placed between each end of the
superstructure and its adjacent abutment. Therefore, the most
common design concept for a road and railway bridge
traditionally consists of some type of superstructure resting on an
abutment at each end as shown in figure 1. Their may also be
one or more intermediate piers.
Fig. 1. Conventional bridge design.
Bridge designers are essentially striving to achieve the same goals, namely: long-term serviceability, low
maintenance characteristics and economy of construction. While many recent developed techniques have been
mastered such as welding techniques, composite decks, etc., one important aspect of design -reduction or
elimination of expansion devices and associated bearings- is consistently overlooked or avoided by nearly all
bridge-design practitioners. Although the design shown in figure 1 works well in concept, experience shows that
the expansion joint/bearing detail can be significant post-
construction maintenance item and thus expense during the in-
service life of a bridge. Therefore, the concept was developed to
physically and structurally connect the superstructure and
abutments as shown in figure 2 to create what is refereed to as an
integral abutment bridge.
Fig. 2. Integral abutment bridge variations.
In doing so, the troublesome and costly expansion joint/bearing is

eliminated. Over the years and in different countries, integral bridges have also been called integral abutment
bridges (IABs), integral bridge abutments, jointless bridges, rigid-frame bridges and U-frame bridges. There is
also a design variant called the semi-integral-bridge. For this type of bridge, only the expansion joint is eliminated
by extending the bridge superstructure over the top of the abutment. The bearing between deck and abutment is
still present. Bearing maintenance is presumably reduced with this type of design because surface water no longer
has direct access to the bearing. An explanation on definitions used about the terms ‘integral’, ‘semi-integral’ and
‘continous’ is given in table 1.
Definitions End support Intermediate support
Nederlands Engels Expansion Bearing Expansion Bearing

(voegloos) (jointless) joint joint
• landhoofdloos, integral no no no yes/no
integraal
• semi- semi-integral no yes no yes/no
landhoofdloos,
semi-integraal
• voegloos continuous yes yes no yes/no
Table 1. Definitions on type of bridge.
Fig. 3. Fig. 4.
Integral bridge; deflection caused by thermal action. Integral bridge; deflection caused by traffic loading.
16. Integral abutments for bridges 230

Dr. A. Romeijn
Integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements without conventional expansion joints/bearings. With the
superstructure rigidly connected to the substructure and with flexible substructure piling, the superstructure is
permitted to expand and contract. Approach slabs, connected to the abutment and deck slab with reinforcement,
move with the superstructure. At its junction to the approach pavement, a sleeper slab may support the approach
slab. If a sleeper slab is not utilised, the superstructure movement is accommodated using flexible pavement joints.
As for retaining wall abutments, a reinforced concrete pile cap is considered to be the most practical means of
achieving this connection. An example of such a connection is given in figures 5 – 7.
Fig. 5. Fig. 6.
Built-in connection for high modulus pile retaining wall. Built-in connection for tubular column-pile.
Fig. 7. Erection of an integral bridge.
16.2 Why integral bridges?

Recently, there is an increasing interest in integral bridges in The Netherlands. The main reason for this
phenomenon is to be found in the field of pitfalls associated with the use of movement joints and bearings
resulting in large whole life costing. Even waterproof joints will leak over time, allowing water, salt-laden or
otherwise to pour through the joint accelerating corrosion damage to girder ends, bearings and supporting
reinforced concrete structures. Accumulated dirt, rocks and trash fill elastomeric glands leading to failure.
Hardware for joints can be damaged and loosened by snow plows and the relentless pounding of heavy traffic.
Broken hardware can become a hazard to motorists and a liability to owners.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 8. Example of accumulated dirt leading to failure of the elastomeric expansion joint.
Beside arguments summarised above, advantages from structural continuity between the deck and structural
elements, such as design efficiency, reduction of span length and sound emission, dynamic behaviour (passengers
comfort), damping capacity and aesthetics, are also becoming more popular using the integral concept. The choice
of type of bridge has been largely governed by overall first cost of bridges. For many years, this was a satisfactory
basis, but in recent years other factors have become increasingly important. These include: whole-life cost
inclusive of maintenance and road user delay; efficient use of energy and materials in construction; environmental
issues and sustainability. The record of durability has not been fully satisfactory. Bridges are usually critical
thoroughfares and often lack satisfactory alternative routes during repair work, especially estuarial crossings.
Traffic intensity and gross weights of trucks have increased significantly since the sixties when the current design
was largely developed. It is now recognised that the cost of disrupted traffic during repair and maintenance should
be considered. These have been evaluated as (almost) exceeding the cost of the repair itself. Although these costs
are not borne by bridge owners, they have considerable overall economic significance. Based on recent
experience, it is expected that integral bridges will be more efficient, especially in terms of whole-life cost and
sustainability. Because of the increasing interest in the use of integral bridges, for optimal design several questions
need to be answered, like:
main characteristics and current experience, experience abroad (England, United States, etc.), resulting
stresses due to creep, shrinkage, thermal action, etc., resulting deflection and rotation at the location of
structural continuity, limitation of span length for bridges (steel and concrete), several aspects of
construction, foundation stiffness (like soil characteristics) and junction between run-on slab and
highway itself (adjacent pavement).
Several international recommendations have been published, which form a basis for good design [1-4]. Valuable
information, mainly based on practical experience, exists on the relation between type of bridge (steel, composite
or concrete) and maximum span length [5]. Also, results have been published on skew integral bridges:
Following recommendations such as Highways Agency’s Standard BD 57, Design for durability “The majority of
bridges in the UK, with spans less than 60 m, should be designed as integral bridge”, is highly applicable to the
situation in The Netherlands, because approx. 70% of all bridges have a span length less than 60m.
For the classic concept of bridges in The Netherlands (concrete as well as steel bridges), a large majority of the
problems observed with expansion joints and bridge bearings can be attributed to corrosion, wear and lack of
(fatigue) strength. For a long period, 1975 – 1990, a planned routine inspection has been carried out on expansion
joints for medium movements. Several kinds of shortcomings were observed, which are classified in table 2.
(Structural) component Percentage [%] Observation/ Shortcoming

Anchoring 5 large deformation, loss of connection
Material 10 damage to welded details, corrosion
Sound emission 35 underneath bridge, surrounded living
areas
Connection adjacent 35 frequent repair
pavement
Waterproofing 10 penetration of water, silt, etc.
Continuous seal 5 dilatation tolerance
Table 2. Performance in service of expansion joint.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 9.
Left: example of an expansion joint (finger).
Middle: example of an expansion joint (asphalt plug).
Right: example of a steel bearing.
16.3 Primary differences between integral bridge and “classic” bridge

A review of some of the primary differences between integral bridges and their jointed counterparts is given.
No bearings and joints

Integral bridges can be built without bearings and deck joints. This result in savings in initial costs and the absence
of joints and bearings will reduce maintenance efforts.
Simplified construction
The simple characteristics of integral bridges make
for rapid and economical construction. For
example, there is no need to construct cofferdams,
make footing excavations, place backfill, remove
cofferdams, prepare bridge seats, place bearings,
backwalls and deck joints.
Instead, integral construction for small span bridges
generally results in few placement days. After the
embankments, piles and pile caps have been placed
and deck stringers erected, deck slabs, continuity
connections, and approach slabs can follow in rapid
succession.
Fig. 10. Example of an integral abutment.
In extreme cases, some multi span bridges have been completed with just two concrete placement days; one for the
structure itself and one for the approach slabs. Like all other type of bridges, the construction of an integral bridge
is done in stages. An example is given in figure 11.
(1) (Sheet)piling
(2) Casting of cap beam
(3) (Bridge)deck
(4) Connection between sub-superstructure
(1) (2) (3) (5) Slab, soil excavation, etc.
Fig. 11.
Construction stages of an integral bridge.
(4) (5)

Dr. A. Romeijn
Greater end span ratio ranges

Integral abutments are more resistant to uplift. The integral abutment weight as counterweights. Thus, a smaller
end span to interior span ratio can be used without providing expensive hold-down to expansion bearings.
Improved ride quality

Smooth jointless construction improves vehicular riding quality, diminishes vehicular impact stress levels and
reduces the sound emission.
Added redundancy and capacity for catastrophic events

The integrity of the structural system of integral bridges makes them extremely resistant to catastrophic events like
accidental and seismic loading.
Design efficiency
Design efficiencies are achieved in:
- superstructure design; reduction of bending moment and increased stiffness

- substructure design; longitudinal and transverse loads acting upon the structure are distributed more
evenly between the deck beams
- reduction of span length.
Secondary effects
Like most of their jointed bridge counterparts, integral bridges are subjected to secondary effects due to shrinkage,
creep, thermal gradients, differential settlements and differential deflections. They are also subjected to passive
pressure effects when abutment backfill is compresses during superstructure elongation and to pavement relief
joint pressure when moisture and sustained high temperatures trigger pavement growth. The stress levels
generated by these secondary effects are generally understood but mostly not well quantified.
Tolerance requirements reduced

The close tolerances required for setting expansion bearings and joints are eliminated. Although other tolerance
requirements may be introduced, depending on the connection detail.
16.4 Limitations
Like any other type of design, the attributes of integral bridges are accompanied by some limitations.
Approach slabs
(Integral) bridges should be provided with approach slabs to prevent vehicular traffic from consolidating backfill
adjacent to abutments, to eliminate live load surcharging of backfill, to minimize the adverse effect of consolidated
backfill and approach embankments on movement of vehicular traffic adjacent to abutments and to prevent water
penetration. Because of the cyclic movement of integral bridges, approach slabs must be anchored to the bridge;
otherwise, continual bridge movement and joint infiltration will shift slabs toward flexible approach pavement,
away from abutments and off the approach slab seats.
As an indication:
- the length of an approach slab vary from a minimum of 3 m to a maximum that is based on the intercept
of a 1 on 1.5 line from the bottom of the abutment excavation to the top of the pavement.
- the end of the approach slab shall be parallel to the skew
- where warranted, as per the expansion provision as summarized below, to prevent the approach slab
from moving excessively, it should rest on a keyed sleeper slab.
- the approach slab shall be designed as a structural slab that is supported at each end.
For the integral bridge with a span length of approx. 70 m, constructed at Son A50, special attention has been paid
to optimal design of the adjacent pavement because of the (expected) increased length of the integral bridges
compared to all other existing integral bridges. A detailed research has been carried out, resulting in an improved
connection. The main characteristics of the new developed connection are:
- concrete approach slab 5000*350 mm2 supported by stabilized sand;
- concrete approach slab hinged connected to the bridge deck by stainless steel reinforcement ø25-420;
- for control of cracks, such as crack width criteria for concrete design, for a length of approx. 15 m
starting at the beginning of the concrete slab, asphalt-reinforcement glassgrid 8501 as illustrated in
figure 12 is being used. Because of the response to cyclic deck movements, especially those caused by
thermal actions, the fatigue strength is an important design criterion.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 12.
The use of asphalt-reinforcement
glassgrid 8501 for connecting the
bridge deck to the highway.
Joints of the bridge

Cycle control joints, joints that facilitate longitudinal cycling of bridges and approach slabs, should be provided
between approach slabs and approach pavement. For the shortest bridges, the usual pavement expansion joints
should be sufficient. For longer bridges, however, specially designed cycle control joints should be provided. An
example is given in figure 12. As an indication only:
- for bridge lengths 50 m or less, unless the highway pavement is rigid concrete, provisions for expansion
at the approach slab ends shall not be required
- for bridge length over 50 m and up to 100 m, provision shall be made for expansion at the end of each
approach slab by installation of a sleeper slab
- for bridge length over 100 m an up to 140 m, integral design shall be approved, on an individual basis
Provisions for expansion shall be made
- for bridge lengths over 140 m, integral abutments are not recommended at this time
The real span lengths given depends on many factors, like type of material used for the superstructure (steel,
(prestressed) concrete, etc.), type of material used for the substructure (steel/concrete piles) and it’s bending
stiffness ‘EI’, construction stages, concrete time-dependence aspects like shrinkage and creep, backfill material,
etc.
Pile loading
One primary concern expressed about the construction of integral bridges with pile supported flexible abutments is
the design complexity on abutment pile flexural stresses.
If the pile supporting system utilizes the frictional forces between the piles and the soil, consideration should be
given to the effect of lateral displacement of the piles on the frictional resistance. As the piles will be moving
laterally with temperature variations and with traffic loading, a gap may be produced between the disturbed soil
and the pile. This may result in considerable decrease of the frictional resistance of the piles. Therefore, the pile
should be designed using the effective frictional pile length reduced by pile displacements.
16.5 Existing (semi) integral bridges in The Netherlands

Identical to observations abroad, the use (and design) of integral bridges is mainly based on practical experience
on maintenance-free lives of such bridge structures. An inventory of (semi) integral bridges existing in The
Netherlands is summarised in figure 13.
80 Integral - with additional

Skew (degrees)
60 anchoring
Fig. 13.
Integral - without additional
40 Number of (semi)integral
anchorings
bridges by span length in The
20 Semi-Integral - without Netherlands.
additional anchoring
0
0 20 40 60
length (m)
As illustrated in figure 14, most of the existing integral bridges are constructed using concrete only (incl. abutment
wall and pile support) and working integrally with the soils surrounding them. The inspection of integral bridges
looks very promising, because up to now nearly all bridges were found to be fully maintenance-free. For some

Dr. A. Romeijn
bridges, in spite of using a concrete approach slab, the solution without using an asphalt plug or one asphalt plug
joint at the beginning of this slab (bridge side) only results in pavement cracks. For all integral bridges, as shown
in figure 14, using an asphalt plug at both ends of the slab resulted in a maintenance-free solution.
Fig. 14.
Left: frequently used types of integral bridges.
Right: asphalt plug at both ends of an approach slab.
Many of the (semi) integral bridges are skew in plan, some even with a very large skew angle, like 40º. The effect
of high skew is to magnify the displacement at the acute corner of a wide bridge. As a design tool, a limit of
approx. 60º is used [5]. However, this limitation should be regarded as a warning, rather than an absolute
limitation. The results of an inventory on integral bridges in The Netherlands that are skew in plan is given in
figure 15. The alternatives used for foundation of integral bridges in The Netherlands can be summarized in the
categories as shown in figure 16. Compared to other countries, prestressed concrete piles are in comparison to
steel piles rather popular because of excellent load resistance (shaft friction and end-bearing) and relatively low
costs.
80 Integral
length (m)
60 Semi-Integral
40
20
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Fig. 15. Skew angle in relation to span
length and additional anchoring (sheet
year pile abutment).
banksea
t
combi- 4%
piles
concrete
21%
piles Non-integral bridges are almost always founded on concrete piles.
47%
sheet
piles
17% tubular
piles
11%
Fig. 16. Foundation alternatives of integral bridges.
The largest integral bridge, recently finished at Son A50, has a total length of approx. 70 m. A view of the bridge
is given in figure 17. The bridge deck was constructed in situ using prestressed concrete. Instead of using a
concrete capping beam connection between deck and foundation, the frame abutment is fully integrally casted with
the deck, which implies that there are no construction joints. Some of the consequences of using such a method are
reduction of effectively prestressing and additional stresses caused by time dependent aspects, like shrinkage.

Dr. A. Romeijn
For the foundation, as illustrated in figure 17, because of criteria on axial load
resistance, deformation capacity needed for cyclic horizontal displacement,
costs, aesthetics and durability, steel combi-piles are used.
Fig. 17. Integral bridge Son and Breughel.

Steel combi-pile used as retaining wall and foundation.
For establishing the connection between foundation and deck the

upper part of the piles is filled with reinforced concrete. Identical
to observations abroad, the use (and design) of integral bridges is
mainly based on practical experience.
Fig. 18. Connection between foundation and bridge deck.
For the planned new highways A50 and

A73 approx. ten integral bridges more or
less equal to the one described above will
be constructed, and the main topics of
current research are related to allowable
span length for bridges fully constructed
in concrete (incl. foundation).
Some examples of steel sections for

integral bridge piers and abutments as
frequently used outside The Netherlands are given in figure 19.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 19. Some examples on steel sections for

integral bridge piers and abutments.
16.6 Horizontally soil-structure interaction

The soil-structure interaction, especially in horizontal direction, is an important design consideration. This
because the geologic conditions have a significant effect on the design of an integral bridge.
(a) ∆ 6EI∆
MT = 2 + M PASSIEF
L
6 EI∆
MB = 2 − M PASSIEF
MT L
An integral bridge will experience elongation and contraction due to
temperature variations during it’s service life. Thus, the earth pressure at
the abutments should be considered in correlation with temperature
L
actions.
EI Therefore, when the bridge contracts, an active earth pressure will be
developed behind the abutment. At rest earth pressure behind the
abutment is assumed when there is no horizontal displacement.
f
Fig. 20. Bending moments caused by horizontal displacement.
k
MB
When the bridge elongates due to an increase in temperature, the intensity
of passive earth pressure behind the abutment depends on the magnitude of the bridge displacement toward the
backfill soil. In addition to horizontal displacement caused by temperature variations, the concrete effects like
shrinkage, creep and prestress should taken into account. The horizontally soil-structure interaction is explained by
considering some results obtained from a case study on especially the forces and displacements of the abutment
concrete piles of a multi-span concrete integral bridge.
Basics on geometry
A multi-span concrete integral bridge with a length of 80 m (25-30-25) is considered.
The geometrical basics are explained in figures 21 – 23.
80 m
25 m 30 m 25 m
4,5 m
0,6 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 0,6
15,0
7 concrete piles450 mm
Fig. 21.
Left: Geometry of the integral bridge.
Right: Schematic view of foundation (at abutment).
For the deck, in-situ concrete C55/65 is used and prefab prestressed concrete piles C45/55 constitute the
foundation. The concrete cross head beam / endscreen wall is casted together simultaneously with the bridge deck
at the same time.

Dr. A. Romeijn
field
15,0 m
0,25 m
0,25 m 0,72 m
0,22 m
2,5 m 10,0 m 2,5 m
At support
15,0 m
0,25 m
0,25 m 0,97 m
0,47 m
(1) (2) (3) (4)
2,5 m 10,0 m 2,5 m
Fig. 22.
Left: Cross sections of the bridge deck.
Right: Conceptual method about construction on site.
450 720 970

250
350
45° 720
620
250
800
800
3000 3000
1100 800 1000

mm
Fig. 23.
Left: Prestressing of the concrete deck.
Right: Bridge deck at pier location.
Soil data for design

Accurately determined soil properties, both local and adjacent to the construction site need to be obtained to
enable an integral bridge to be designed confidently. Soil strength parameters used are summarized in table 3.
Soil from to h γdroog γnat c’ δ φ’ Ka K0 Kp

m (NAP m m kN/m3 kN/m3 kPa ° ° - - -
(NAP)
Sand1 +4,00 -1,60 5,60 17 20 0 20 30 0,22 0,50 3,50
Sand2
Sand1 -1,60 -3,00 1,40 17 20 0 22 28 0,30 0,53 5,07
Sand2
Sand3 -10,00 -15,00 5,00 17 20 0 27 35 0,22 0,43 33,24
Sand4 -19,00 -20,00 1,00 17 20 0 27 35 0,22 0,43 33,24
Peat1 -3,00 -6,00 3,00 10 10 3 0 15 0,59 0,74 2,52
Peat2
Clay1 -6,00 -9,20 3,20 17 17 10 12 18 0,46 0,69 4,36
Clay2
Clay3 -9,20 -10,00 0,80 17 17 10 12 18 0,46 0,69 4,90
Clay4 -15,0 -19,0 4,00
Table 3. Basics on soil parameters.
with
Ka = active side: earth pressure coefficient
Ko = at rest: earth pressure coefficient
Kp = passive side: earth pressure coefficient
C’ = effective stress cohesion strength [kPa]
δ = mobilised angle of wall friction [o ]
φ’ = effective stress angle of shearing resistance [o ]
Accurately determined soil properties, both local and adjacent to the construction site need to be obtained. For
defining the soil stiffness K [kN/m3 ], a certain scatter (upper and lower bound) on soil characteristics is taken into

Dr. A. Romeijn
Bridge Road
Cneter pile
Ground l. +4,0
sand 1 sand 2
talud 2:3
-1,6
wp -2,0
sand 1 sand 2
-3,0
peat 1 peat 2
-6,0
clay 1 clay 2
-9,2
clay 3 clay 3
-10,0
account so-called soft (low) and high stiffness. Also, the
sand 3 sand 3 stiffness depends on type of loading , like for example traffic
loading classified as short term loading and temperature
-15,0
actions classified as long term loading. Because of the
clay 3 clay 3 presence of a certain excavation level underneath the bridge,
-19,0
there exists a difference on soil stiffness for both sides of the
sand 4 sand 4 pile foundation( see figure 24). The result on soil stiffness
-20,0
Pile length 24 m coefficients are summarized in table 4.
Fig. 24. Soil type by increasing depth.
Soil layer Site Location Lower bound Upper bound

stiffness stiffness
Shortter Longterm Shortter Longterm

m m
3 3 3 3
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
sand 1 bridge begin 2800 2800 6400 6400
end 5700 5700 12800 12800
sand 2 road begin 11400 11400 25600 25600
end 22800 22800 51200 51200
sand 1 bridge begin 6300 6300 13800 13800
end 9300 9300 20300 20300
sand 2 road begin 22500 22500 49100 49100
end 22500 22500 49100 49100
sand 3 both begin 25300 25300 55300 55300
end 25300 25300 55300 55300
sand 4 both begin 105000 105000 232000 232000
end 105000 105000 232000 232000
peat 1 bridge begin 4800 1000 10200 2000
end 6100 1200 13100 2600
peat 2 road begin 7600 1500 16100 3200
end 7600 1500 16100 3200
clay 1 bridge begin 17400 3500 39100 7800
end 22300 4500 50200 10000
clay 2 road begin 22300 4500 50200 10000
end 22300 4500 50200 10000
clay 3 both begin 22300 4500 50200 10000
end 22300 4500 50200 10000
3
Table 4. Stiffness coefficient K [kN/m ]; mainly based on using the C-φ-δ - Culman method.
Horizontal displacements at the connection bridge deck – abutment

For the analyses, three utilisation stages T1-T3 are relevant, namely:
T1 (t = 7 days: after prestressing concrete deck)

Dr. A. Romeijn
T2 (t = 56 days: first existence of traffic loads)

T3 (t = 80 years: design life).
For analyzing the maximum horizontal displacement at the location of the reinforced concrete pile capping
beam/wall, because of the method on construction considered, the following effects are taken into account:
- temperature (ENV 1991-2-5);
- concrete effects: shrinkage (hydratation heat, shrinkage (ENV 1992-1-1, art. A.1.1.3), hardening) and
creep (ENV 1992-1-1: 1991 art. A.1.1.2);
- concrete prestress (NVN-ENV 1992-1).
-
The results of horizontal displacement are summarized in table 5.
(Load)case Phase (utilisation stage)

T1 T2 T3
Min max min max min max
Shrinkage: hydratation heat -16,0 -16,0 -16,0 -16,0 -16,0 -16,0
Shrinkage: hardening -10,0 -10,0 -10,0 -10,0 -10,0 -10,0
Prestress -12,7 -12,7 -12,7 -12,7 -12,7 -12,7
Daily temperature -0,7 +1,3 -0,7 +1,3 -0,7 +1,3
Yearly temperature 0 0 -11,2 +10,4 -11,2 +10,4
Shrinkage -0,3 -0,3 -0,7 -0,7 -8,9 -8,9
Creep 0 0 -7,3 -7,3 -19,3 -19,3
Total -39,7 -37,7 -58,6 -35,0 -78,8 -55,2
Table 5. Horizontal displacement [mm] at the connection bridge deck – abutment.
Forces at the connection bridge deck - abutment

For the analysis of member forces, the following combination on loading and horizontal displacement is relevant.
Phase Loads Horizontal displacements
Permanent Variable Direct Prestress Creep Temp.
EG VSP RB TG MB RC VHK AH EV KRU KRI TD TJ
K W
T1 X X X X X X X
T2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
T3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
with:
EG Self weight VHK Shrinkage: hardening
VSP Prestress concrete deck AHW Shrinkage: hydratation heat
RB Permanent loading EV Deck prestressing
TG Temperature gradient KRU Creep: deck prestressing
MB Traffic loading vertical TD Daily temperature
RCK Traffic loading horizontal TJ Yearly temperature
Table 6. Combination of loads and actions causing horizontal displacements / member forces.
Some results on rotation stiffness for lower and upper bound earth pressure coefficients are summarized in table 7.
Moment Rotation stiffness (kNm/ rad)

kNm Lower bound Upper bound Total
Short term Long term Short term Long term average Min/Max
-900 67470 66572 78951 78675 72917 84%
-675 68739 67773 80359 79978 74213 84%
-450 71203 70534 82418 82118 76568 86%
-225 78125 78125 87891 87891 83008 89%
225 91464 91464 109223 109223 100344 84%
450 90362 90362 105141 104652 97629 86%
675 88584 88584 98686 98686 93635 90%
900 85881 85717 93171 92786 89389 92%
Table 7. Rotation stiffness: horizontal displacement 0 mm.

Dr. A. Romeijn
In general, for all displacements considered (0, +12, -35 and –72 mm), the ratio on rotation stiffness for lower and
upper bound earth pressure coefficients is larger than 80%. Therefore, for the design an average value is used.
M; θ
Using a sign notation as explained in figure 25, the results on the relation between
F; ∆
- + horizontal displacement – bending moment – rotation stiffness are given in figure
26.
Fig. 25. Sign notations used for the analyses.
Displacement 0 mm
rotation stiffness (kNm/rad)

Displacement 12 mm
Displacement -35 mm
150000 Displacement -72 mm
100000
Fig. 26. Relation between horizontal displacement
and rotation stiffness. 50000
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
moment (kNm)
horizontal force
100
(kN)
0
-100
-200
-100 -50 0 50
displacement (mm)
Fig. 27. Analytical results on the relation between displacement and horizontal force.
Reaction on horizontal displacement at the connection bridge deck - abutment

As shown in figure 28, there exists a certain relation between horizontal displacement/horizontal force and
rotation/bending moment. Because of the stiffness ‘EA’ and ‘EI’ of the bridge deck, the influences should be
included by considering a frame analyses. Considering alternative analytical models, figure 28, shows the results
on the relation between bending moment and horizontal displacement.
500
bending mmoment (kNm)
lower bound, short term, EI in

Msheet
0 upper bound, short term, EI in
Msheet
-500 upper bound, short term, bridge
deck infinitely stiff
-1000 upper bound, short term,
rotation stiffness ALP
-1500
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
horizontal displacement (mm)
Fig. 28. Relation between bending moment and horizontal displacement for alternative analytical models.
As shown in figure 28, the relation between horizontal displacement and bending moment is rather linear.
Therefore, the magnitude of bending moment largely depends on the ‘EI’ value of the pile foundation instead of
soil stiffness. Considering the analytical model based on ALP, as shown in figure 29, the resistance by soil
stiffness for elongation of the bridge deck is much larger then for contraction.

Dr. A. Romeijn
normal force (kN) 200

0
-200
-400
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
horizontal displacement (mm)
Fig. 29. Analytical model based on APL: Relation between horizontal displacement and normal force.
Using the M-sheet analytical model, the results on load distribution for the three types of horizontal displacements
analyzed are given in table 8.
Construction stage Horiz. displa. [mm] Moment [kNm] Horiz. Force [kN]
umin umax Mmin Mmax Fh;min Fh;max
T1 -39,7 -37,7 -549 -528 -250 -243

T2 -58,6 -35,0 -704 -462 -296 -217
T3 -78,8 -55,2 -513 -283 -196 -123
Table 8. Load distribution at the connection – bridge deck – abutment.
Total bridge design

For the design of the concrete piles of the abutment, the real M-N-χ diagram has been used. Because for the piles a
strong relationship exists between EI and bending moments. Caused by large horizontal displacements, for a
certain region “earth yielding” occurs, which means that the influence of stiffness EI of the piles on member forces
is found to be large. After several modifications of the design, like magnitude of prestress of the concrete piles and
position and magnitude of prestress of the bridge deck, the maximum length of an integral concrete bridge
(abutment and deck casted at the same time) is found to be approx. 80 m. The decisive parameters when
increasing the length are found to be the bending moments and shear forces for the concrete piles. A very effective
solution for increasing the maximum length is the use of a construction joint between deck and foundation. This
results in nearly 50% reduction on horizontal displacement, which increases the maximum length to approx. 160m.
For larger spans, the use of steel piles might become a better alternative because of the positive effect on
deformation capacity.
When using a steel pile foundation, a corrosion loss allowance needs to be taken into account. The redistribution
of earth pressure that occurs as a result of the increased flexure of a corroded section can be significant. Therefore,
the end-of-life condition can be a critical design situation of the pile section.
The reduced (corroded) section properties can be obtained from text books. For example the sacrificial
thicknesses, for one side of the pile only with a design life of 120 years, for piling according to BD 42 is equal to:
Exposure zone Sacrificial thickness [mm]

Atmospheric 4
Continuous immersion in water or effluent 4
In contact with natural soil 2
Splash and alternating wet/dry conditions 9
Table 9. Sacrificial thicknesses for piling according to BD 452.
16.7 EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE, SHRINKAGE AND CREEP ON INTEGRAL BRIDGES

As shown in paragraph 16.6, one of the main parameters on the design of an integral bridge is the horizontal
displacement at the deck – abutment connection. As integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements
without conventional expansion joints and bearings, the horizontal displacement, which can be either deck
elongation or deck contraction, is one of the main differences between the design of a “classic” bridge and an
integral bridge.
In this paragraph, the results on horizontal displacements of a concrete bridge deck with a total bridge length taken
as a free parameter varying between 20 and 180m, caused by temperature actions and concrete time dependency

Dr. A. Romeijn
aspects incl. prestress are presented. The influences of the consequences using various concrete strength classes
and building sequences are included.
16.7.1 Thermal actions based on Eurocode

The temperature of the bridge structure changes on a daily (short term) and seasonal (annual: long term) climatic
basis and influences the overall movements of the bridge deck. The fifth section of the first part of Eurocode 1
(EN1991-1-5: 2002) gives principles, rules and methods of calculating thermal actions (variable loads) on bridges.
The temperature profiles are determined on a national basis taking into account exposure to daily variations of
solar radiation and the daily range of the shade air temperature. Compared to buildings, the Eurocode deals with
the temperature changes in bridges in far more detail. It groups bridge superstructures (bridge decks) into three
types
type 1: Steel deck on steel box, truss or plate girders

type 2: Concrete deck on steel box, truss or plate girders (so-called composite bridges)
type 3: Concrete slab or concrete deck on concrete beams or box girders.
The temperature distribution within an individual element may be split into the following four essential constituent
components, as illustrated in figure 30.
a) uniform temperature component, ∆TN
b) linearly varying temperature component about
the z-z axis, ∆TMz
c) linearly varying temperature component about
the y-y axis, ∆TMy
d) non-linear temperature component, ∆TE
Fig. 30. Constituent components of a temperature profile.
For bridges, all representative values of thermal actions should be assessed by the uniform temperature component
∆TN and the linear temperature component ∆TMy,z. In cases where non-linear distributions need to be considered in
detail, appropriate temperature differences ∆TE should be applied.
Uniform bridge temperature component – characteristic value

The characteristic value of the uniform temperature component ∆TN depends on the minimum and maximum
effective temperature ( Te.min / Te.max ) that a bridge will achieve over a prescribed period of time. For the three
groups of bridges, guidance is provided on the determination of the
minimum/maximum bridge temperatures from the minimum and
maximum shade air temperatures ( Tmin / Tmax ). The
minimum/maximum shade air temperature shall be derived from
national maps of isotherms given in the Eurocode. The situation for
The Netherlands is as follows:
- Isotherm of minimum shade air temperature

• in general Tmin = -22o C
• coastal provinces N-Holland, Z-Holland and Zeeland -17o C
- Isotherm of maximum shade air temperature
• in general T max = +38o C
• coastal provinces N-Holland, Z-Holland and Zeeland +35o C
Fig. 31. Correlation between minimum/maximum shade air

temperature (Tmin / T max) and minimum/maximum uniform bridge
temperature component (Te,min / Te,max).
If no other information is available, the values for shade air

temperature should be adjusted for height above sea level by subtracting 0,5 °C per 100m height for minimum
shade air temperature and adding 1,0 °C per 100m height for maximum shade air temperature. In case of a design
life for a bridge other than 50 years, like 80 years, a multiplication factor needs to be taken into account according
to:

Dr. A. Romeijn
Tmax,80 = T max {k1 -k2 ·ln(-ln[1-1/R])}

Tmin,80 = T min {k3 +k4 ·ln(-ln[1-1/R])}
with 80 is return period of maximum (minimum) shade air
temperature.
The k1 -k4 values may be specified in the National Annex. In
absence of specific data the following values based on U.K.
data may be used:
k1 = 0.781; k2 = 0.056; k3 = 0.393 and k4 = -0.156.
For different values on the design life (R), the modified T max
and Tmin can be taken from figure 32.
Fig. 32. Ratios Tmax,R / Tmax and Tmin,R / Tmin.
The characteristic value of the maximum contraction and maximum expansion range of uniform bridge
temperature component, ∆TN should be taken as
∆TN,con = Te,min - T0
∆TN,exp = Te,max - T0
with T0 = initial temperature when the structural element is restrained. If no other provision is required, the range
of movement for design shall be taken as the appropriate value obtained from
∆TN,con = ∆TN,con - 20o C
∆TN,exp = ∆TN,exp + 20o C
multiplied by partial factor for ULS or SLS respectively (according to EN 1990). However, if the temperature at
which the bridge restraining is set is known, the higher ranges may be reduced by 10o C.
Linear bridge temperature component – characteristic value: simplified means

Over a prescribed period of time, heating and cooling of a bridge deck’s upper surface will result in a maximum
positive (top surface warmer) ∆TM,heat and a maximum negative (bottom surface warmer) ∆TM,cool temperature
variation. Recommended values on the linear vertical temperature differences are given in table 10. These values
are based on a depth of surfacing of 50mm for road and railway bridges. For other depths of surfacing these values
should be multiplied by the factor ksur.
Type of deck Top warmer than bottomwarmer than top

∆TM,heat (° C) M,cool (° C)
Type 1: Steel deck 18 13
Type 2: Composite deck 15 18
Type 3: Concrete deck
- Concrete box 10 5
girder 15 8
- Concrete beam 15 8
- Concrete slab
Table 10. Values of linear temperature difference component for various types of bridge decks for road, foot
and railway bridges.
In particular cases, for example when the orientation or configuration of the bridge results in one side being far
more exposed to sunlight than the other side, a horizontal temperature difference component ∆TMz may need to be
considered. In such cases, if no other information is available and no indications of higher values exist, 5°C may
be taken as a linear temperature difference between the outer edges of the bridge independent of the width of the
bridge.
Vertical temperature component with non-linear effect – characteristic value

The vertical non-linear temperature component ∆TE is taken into account considering a penetration depth. For the
three types of bridge decks, recommended values are given in the Eurocode 1 [1]. As an example, values of the
temperature differences are given in figure 4. The values are valid for superstructure group 1.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Surfaci Negative
ng Positive temp. temp.
thicknes difference difference
s profile [o C] profile [o C]
[mm]
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1
unsurfa 30 16 6 3 8
ced 27 15 9 5 6
20 24 14 8 4 6
40
Fig. 33. Temperature differences for bridge decks – type 1: Steel decks.
Simultaneity of uniform and temperature difference components

For several situations like in case of integral bridges, it is necessary to take into account simultaneity of both the
temperature difference components and the maximum contraction/expansion range of the uniform bridge
temperature component. The following expression (which should be interpreted as a load combination) may be
used:
∆TM,heat or (∆TM,cool ) + ωN * ∆TN,exp or (∆TN,con )
or
∆TN,exp or (∆TN,con ) + ωM * ∆TM,heat or (∆TM,cool )
The most adverse effect should be chosen.

Where both linear and non-linear vertical temperature differences are used, the ∆TM should be replaced by ∆T
which includes ∆TM and ∆TE . If no other information is available, values ωN and ωM may be taken as: ωN = 0.35
and ωM = 0.75. According to EN 1991-1-1:2002 and ENV 1991-3:1995 the ULS and SLS should be considered
using the corresponding representative values of loads or actions, like:
- infrequent (return period of occurrence is one year)
- frequent (return period of occurrence is two weeks)
- quasi-permanent
These representative values may be obtained with the help of reduction coefficients ψ, which, when multiplied by
the characteristic value, lead to the level of actions with the given return period.
For example, ULS-railway bridges:
- value of thermal action; ∆T1 = ψ0 ∆Tk with ψ0 = 0.6
- frequent value of thermal action; ∆T1 = ψ1 ∆Tk with ψ1 = 0.6
- infrequent value of thermal action; ∆T1 ’ = ψ1 ’ ∆Tk with ψ1 ’ = 0.8
- quasi-permanent value of thermal action; ∆T2 = ψ2 ∆Tk with ψ2 = 0.5
16.7.2 Concrete (time dependency) actions based on Eurocode

The concrete (time dependency) actions can be subdivided into the following categories:
a) Shrinkage: adiabatic, hardening, normal; b) Creep; c) Prestress.
a.1 Shrinkage: adiabatic

The process of concrete hardening results in hydratation heat and thus an increase of concrete volume. The
greatest part of increased volume arises when a real deck – abutment connection does not exist. A certain
percentage of the increased volume is developed without being seriously restrained. This percentage depends on
type of strength class considered, like the combination of time development of heat and strength. For example,
considering strength class C55/65, as an indication for normal conditions, the total developed temperature increase
amounts to 60o C and for the analyses an equivalent uniform temperature difference of 40 o C is effective (cooling
after being restrained). The influence of shrinkage caused by temperature increase can be reduced (like cooling
during concrete hardening) by a maximum of approx. 50%.
a.2 Shrinkage: hardening

During the hardening process the autogene/chemical shrinkage and swelling is mainly related to the strength class
and is also taken into account considering an equivalent uniform temperature difference like 25 o C in case of
strength class C55/65.

Dr. A. Romeijn
a.3 Shrinkage: time dependent effects based on Eurocode

As mentioned in appendix A1.1.3 of the ENV 1992-1-1:1991, the time dependent effects caused by shrinkage may
be calculated from
( )
ε cs t − t s = ε cso ⋅ β s t − t s ( ) ε cso = ε s ( f cm )∗ β RH (notional shrinkage coefficient)
a f a fc
β s t − t s = t − t s / 0,035 ⋅ h02 + t − t s h 0 ,5
(description of the development of shrinkage with time)
a
ε s ( f cm ) = 160 + β sc ∗ 90 − fcm ∗10 f −6
(factor to allow for the effect of concrete strength on shrinkage)
F RH I 3
β sRH =1−
H 100 K (coefficient to allow for the effect of relative humidity on the notional shrinkage
coefficient)
β RH = −1.55 * β sRH for 40% ≤ RH < 99% (stored in air)
β RH = +0.25 fo r RH ≥ 99% (immersed in water)
t = age of concrete in days

ts = age of concrete in days at the beginning of shrinkage
h0 = notional size = 2 A c/O
βsc = coefficient depending on the type of cement
4 for slowly hardening cements, S
5 for normal of rapidly hardening cements, N,R
8 for rapidly hardening high strength cements, RS
fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days
βRH = coefficient to allow for the effect of relative humidity on the notional shrinkage
b. Creep
According to appendix A1.1.2 of the ENV 1992-1-1:1991, the creep coefficient may be calculated from
a f a f
φ t , t0 = φ 0 ⋅ β c t − t0 (creep coefficient)
φ 0 = φ RH ⋅ βa f f ⋅ βat f
cm 0 (notional creep coefficient)
φ RH = 1 + (1 − RH / 100) / 010
. ∗ 3 h0 c h (effect of relative humidity on the notional creep coefficient)
a f
β fcm = 16.8 / f cm (effect of concrete strength on the notional creep coefficient)
β c ( t − to ) = ( t − t o ) / (β H + t − to )
0 ,3
(coefficient of the development of creep with time)
t = age of concrete in days at the moment considered

to = age of concrete at loading in days
fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days
and
n
t0 = t 0 ,T ⋅ 9 / 2 + t 0 ,T a f 1 ,2
+1 s α
≥ 0,5
( the influence of type of cement taken into account)
(α = power which depends on type of cement)
β H = 1.5 1 + ( 0.012 RH ) h0 + 250 ≤ 1500

18
(coefficient depending on the relative humidity and the notional
member size)

Dr. A. Romeijn
c. Prestress
−3 (prestressing of the cross section)
Fs = ∑ σ s ∗ As ∗10
Fs (concrete stress caused by prestressing)
3
σb = ∗10
Ab
σb
ε bcreep =
Ec 28 (concrete strain caused by prestressing)
16.7.3 Horizontal bridg e end displacements
Bridge deck alternatives analysed
For a bridge considering the following basics:

• total width of 15m
• a variable total bridge length varying between 20 and 180m (equal main spans)
• a (bridge)deck design according to the Eurocodes (traffic loading, etc.)
• free longitudinal deck movement (fully symmetrical)
three alternative bridge decks have been analysed, namely:

a. concrete bridge deck: monolithic in situ prestressed concrete deck, σs =1250N/mm2
b. concrete bridge deck: pref. ZIP-girders: installation after 60 days; girders c.t.c. 1.2m with deck 210mm
c. composite bridge deck: concrete deck 250mm; steel I-girders S355, c.t.c. 3.0m.
Considering a range of concrete strength classes, results in deck dimensions by means of construction depth, etc.
are summarised in table 11.
Bridge Main Span length [m]

alternative characteristics 20 25 30 35 40 45
In situ
C35/45 constr. depth 580 670 790 910 1030 1150
[mm]
pres. steel 3700 4300 4900 5600 6200 6800
[mm2 /m]
C55/65 constr. depth 540 590 680 770 880 970
[mm]
pres. steel 4050 5200 5800 6600 7200 7900
[mm2 /m]
Prefab
C45/55 constr. depth 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700
[mm]
A girder [m2 ] 0.451 0.511 0.571 0.631 0.691 0.800
O girder [m] 3.76 4.16 4.56 4.96 5.36 5.76
C65/75 constr. depth 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500
[mm]
A girder [m2 ] 0.391 0.451 0.511 0.571 0.631 0.691
O girder [m] 3.36 3.76 4.16 4.56 4.96 5.36
Composit
e
C35/45 constr. depth 555 645 745 785 1065 1480
S355 [mm]
A girder [m2 ] 0,029 0,039 0,043 0,045 0,050 0,066
I girder [m4 ] *10-9 1.58 1.70 4.08 4.65 10.60 26.50
Table 11. Main dimensions of the three bridge alternatives considered.
Displacements caused by thermal actions

As an example, based on the ENV 1992-1-5:1997 for the analyses of displacements caused by uniform and linear
bridge temperature components, when considering concrete bridge deck C55/65: monolithic in situ prestressed

Dr. A. Romeijn
concrete deck, in case of a bridge length of 90m (h=680mm), the following general input parameters have been
used (displacements are given per abutment and considered to be equal for both bridge deck ends):
Yearly (uniform) ∆TN,con = -∆TN,exp = -35 o C which results in ∆l = ± 15.75mm.
Daily (linear) ∆TM,con = -6,5 o C which results in ∆l = -0.6mm
∆TM,exp = 15 o C which results in ∆l = 1.5mm.
Some results are shown in figure 34, and the main conclusions obtained are:
- the maximum elongation (+ sign) is slightly larger than the minimum contraction (- sign)
- the displacement caused by the linear bridge temperature component is found to be small and therefore this
thermal action can be neglected in case of fatigue analysis for e.g. the deck-abutment connection
- displacements are largely depending on the type of deck used (concrete deck versus composite deck)
- the influence of type of concrete strength class used on the displacement is negligible
- the differences in displacements between in situ and prefab concrete bridge deck can be neglected.
60
in situ C55/65: uniform minium
50
in situ C55/65: uniform maximum
]
40
in situ C55/65: linear minimum
bridge end displacement [mm]
30 in situ C55/65: linear maximum

20 in situ C55/65: total minimum
10 in situ C55/65: total maximum
0 composite C35/35: uniform minimum

composite C35/45: uniform maximum
-10 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
composite C35/45: linear minimum
-20
composite C35/45 :linear maximum
-30 composite C35/45: total minimum
-40 composite C35/45: total maximum
-50
-60
bridge length [m]
Fig. 34. Bridge deck end displacement [mm] per abutment (char. value) caused by thermal actions according
to [10].
Displacements caused by adiabatic shrinkage

Assuming a decrease of concrete temperature in restrained condition because of the existence of hydratation heat
of 25o C in case of C35/45 and 40o C in case of C55/65, some results on displacements are shown in figure 35. The
main conclusions obtained are:
- for a composite bridge deck, because of the shear connection between steel flange – concrete deck, the
displacements caused adiabatic shrinkage are relatively small compared to an in situ concrete deck
- for an in situ concrete deck, the displacements caused by adiabatic shrinkage increase in case of an increase of
concrete strength class.
0.0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
]
-10.0
in situ C35/45: adiabatic shrinkage

-20.0
in situ C55/65: adiabatic shrinkage
-30.0 composite C35/45: adiabatic

shrinkage
-40.0
Fig. 35.
-50.0
Bridge deck end displacement
bridge length [m]
[mm] per abutment caused by
adiabatic shrinkage.
Displacements caused by shrinkage hardening

For the design, it is assumed that the shrinkage hardening is more or less equal to the normal shrinkage (time
dependent effects based on the Eurocode). As an indication, the equivalent temperature representing the total
shrinkage caused by hardening is considered to be 25o C in case of C35/C4 and 40o C in case of C55/C65. Most of

Dr. A. Romeijn
the shrinkage hardening takes place during the first 3 days (approx. 80%), and therefore in case of the restrained
condition (fixed connection bridge deck – abutment), the following factor on shrinkage is taken into account:
C35/45: ε = 0.015% (= 15o C) and C55/65: ε = 0.025% (= 25o C). Some results on displacements are shown in
figure 36 and the main conclusions obtained are identical to the conclusions given in case of adiabatic shrinkage.
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

.
in situ C35/45: hardening

-10
shrinkage
in situ C55C65: hardening
shrinkage
composite C35/45:
-20 hardening shrinkage
Fig. 36.
-30
Bridge deck end displacement [mm] per
bridge length [m]
abutment caused by shrinkage hardening.
Displacements caused by time dependent (normal) shrinkage

As an example, based on the ENV 1992-1-1: 1991 art. A1.1.3, for the analysis of displacements caused by
(normal) shrinkage, when considering concrete bridge deck C55/65: monolithic in situ prestressed concrete deck,
in case of a bridge length of 90m (h=680 mm), the following general input parameters have been used:
βs RH = 0.578; βRH = -0.896; t = 25.000 days; ts = 0 days; h0 = 562mm; βs (t-ts) = 0.833; fcm = 63 N/mm2 ; βsc = 5;
εs(fcm) = 2.95.10-4; εcso = -2.643.10-4 ; εcs(t-ts) = -2.201.10-4 . This results into ∆l =-9.9mm.
- for an in situ concrete deck, increase of concrete strength class results in a decrease of normal shrinkage
- for a composite deck, the displacements caused by normal shrinkage are small
- for a prefab deck, the normal shrinkage (after placement of 60 days) is found to be large.
An important factor is the relatively small notional size.
0.0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-5.0
bridge end displacement [mm] .
-10.0
in situ C35/45: normal shrinkage

-15.0
in situ C55/65:normal shrinkage
-20.0 composite C35/45: normal shrinkage
prefab C45/55: normal shrinkage
-25.0 prefab C65/75: normal shrinkage
-30.0
-35.0
-40.0
bridge length [m]
Fig. 37.
Bridge deck end displacement [mm] per abutment caused by (normal) shrinkage.
Displacements caused by time dependent creep

As an example, based on the ENV 1992-1-1: 1991 art. A1.1.2, for the analysis of displacements caused by creep,
when considering concrete bridge deck C55/65: monolithic in situ prestressed concrete deck, in case of a bridge
length of 90m (h=680mm), the following general input parameters have been used:
βH = 1.22.103 ; to = 3 days; βc(t-to) = 0.986; t=25.000 days; tT=3.55 days; toT=6.55 days; α=0; t0c=6.55 days; βt0c =
0.643; β fcm = 2.117; φRH =1.303; φ0 =1.772; φ(t,t0)=1.747; Fs = -108.750kN; σb = -12.5N/mm2 ; Ec m=37.801N/mm2 ;
Ec28=39.691N/mm2 ; εbcreep = -3.20.10-4 . This results into ∆lcreep =-24.8mm; ∆lprestress = -14.9mm.
- for a prefab deck, the displacement caused by normal creep (after placement of 60 days) is found to be small.
Because of placement after 60 days the displacements caused by prestress are assumed to be zero.
- for a prefab deck, increase of concrete strength class results in a decrease of creep
- for an in situ concrete deck, displacements caused by prestress are approx. 50% of the displacements caused
by creep.

Dr. A. Romeijn
0.0
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
-10.0
-20.0
bridge end displacement [mm] .
-30.0 in situ C35/45: normal creep

in situ C35/45: prestress
-40.0 in situ C35/45: total 75 years
in situ C55/65: normal creep
-50.0
in situ C55/65: prestress
-60.0 in situ C55/65: total 75 years

prefab C45/55: total 75 years
-70.0 prefab C65/75: total 75 years
-80.0
-90.0
-100.0
bridge length [m]
Fig. 38. Bridge deck end displacement [mm] per abutment caused by creep and prestress.
Total horizontal bridge end displacements

As an example, considering an in situ concrete deck (C35/45 and C55/65), a prefab deck (C45/55, C65/75) and a
composite deck (C35/45) results of total horizontal bridge end displacements (per abutment: left and right side
considered to be equal) caused by temperature and concrete time dependency actions are summarised in figure 39.
The maximum (elongation) and minimum (contraction) displacements, per abutment shown in figure 39, are based
on a period of 75 years.
The main conclusions obtained from figure 39 are:
- elongation exists only in case of a composite deck (approx. 0.40mm/m’)

- the influence of concrete strength class on the total displacement (in situ as well as prefab) is small
- for an in situ concrete deck the contraction is approx. –1.90mm/m’, for an prefab deck approx.
-0.90mm/m’ and for a composite deck approx. –0.70mm/m’
As an example: in situ concrete deck C35/45 results for a bridge length of 90 m into a total displacement per
abutment of –85.4mm. For the total bridge deck length a value of (2*-85.4)/90 = –1.90 mm/m’ is obtained.
40.0
20.0
0.0
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
-20.0
.
in situ C35/45: total maximum

-40.0 in situ C35/45: total minimum

-60.0 in situ C55/65: total minimum
prefab C45/55: total maximum
-80.0
prefab C45/55: total minimum
-100.0 prefab C65/75: total maximum
-120.0 composite C35/45: total maximum
composite C35/45: total minimum
-140.0
Fig. 39. Total bridge deck end
-160.0
displacement [mm] per abutment
-180.0
caused by temperature and
-200.0 concrete time dependency
bridge length [m]
actions (75 years).
For a bridge length of 90m and a period of 75 years, results of the individual contribution of temperature and
concrete time dependency actions on the bridge end displacement are shown in figures 40-42.

Dr. A. Romeijn
creep
20% 29% prestress
adiabatic shrinkage
15% hardening shrinkage

15% (normal) shrinkage
8%
13% minimum temperature
Fig. 40. In situ concrete deck C35/45: contribution of actions on
bridge end displacement (total contraction = -85.4mm).
0% creep
prestress
47% adiabatic shrinkage
53% hardening shrinkage
(normal) shrinkage
minimum temperature
Fig. 41. Prefab concrete deck C45/55: contribution of actions on
bridge end displacement (total contraction = -43.5mm).
0% 12% creep
6% prestress
6%
adiabatic shrinkage
hardening shrinkage
(normal) shrinkage
76%
minimum temperature Fig. 42. Composite deck C35/45/steel girders S355:
contribution of actions on bridge end displacement (total
contraction = - 31.3mm).
The development of the total bridge end displacement per abutment by time (0.15 – 75 years) is shown in figure
43. A gradient of the lines shown is caused by the concrete time dependency actions.
Some main conclusions obtained from figure 43 are:
- for a composite deck, the change in minimum and maximum bridge deck end displacement during
0.15 – 75 years is negligible
- for a prefab deck, the elongation of the bridge deck end displacement exists only in the first period.
At 75 years, contraction caused by concrete time dependency is larger than elongation caused by temperature.
- for a prefab deck as well as an in situ deck, the maximum and minimum displacements at 0.15 and 75 years
differ entirely.
40.0
20.0
in situ C35/45: total minimum

0.0
0.1 1 10 100
in situ C55/65: total minimum
-20.0
-40.0

-60.0
-80.0 composite C35/45: total

maximum
composite C35/45: total
-100.0 minimum
years
Fig. 43. Bridge length 90: development of bridge deck end displacement [mm] caused by temperature and
concrete time dependency actions (0.15 - 75 years: logarithmic scale).

Dr. A. Romeijn
Conclusions
The bridge end displacement (elongation and contraction) largely depends on the type of bridge deck alternative
used (in situ concrete deck, prefabricated concrete deck, composite deck) and time considered. Therefore, static
stress analyses need to be done considering t = ± 0 and t = design life.
For practical design, for the analyses of the total bridge deck elongation and contraction, the following starting
points can be used:
Time Kind of deck Bridge deck alternative

considered End
displacement
in situ concrete prefab concrete Composite
bridge deck elongation and contraction [mm/m’]
t = ± 60 days Elongation -0.70 0.40 0.40
Contraction -1.50 -0.40 -0.70
t = 75 years Elongation -1.20 -0.20 0.40
Contraction -1.90 -0.90 -0.70
Table 12. Bridge deck displacement caused by the total of temperature / shrinkage / creep / prestress.
In case of a fully symmetric integral bridge (superstructure + substructure) 50% of the values given in table 3 can
be used for the analyses of bridge deck end displacement (per abutment).
Considering deck end displacement, caused by minimum temperature only, might underestimate the bridge deck
contraction largely. For example, the percentage of displacement caused by minimum temperature on the total
displacement (contraction) is approx.:
- monolithic in situ prestressed concrete deck 20%

- prefab concrete deck 50%
- composite steel/concrete deck 75%.
In case of a monolithic in situ prestressed concrete deck, the contribution of actions on the total bridge deck end
displacement (contraction) is approx.: creep 29%, prestress 15%, adiabatic shrinkage 13%, hardening shrinkage
8%, normal shrinkage 15% and temperature 20%.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov
[2] C. Miki et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 58 (2002) 3-20.
[3] Pritchard, B., “Continuous and Integral bridges”, Proceedings of the Henderson Colloquium, E&FN
Spon, ISBN 0-419190309, London, 1993.
[4] Biddle, A.R., Iles, D.C. and Yandzio, E., “Integral Steel Bridges: Design Guidance”, P163: ISBN 1-
859420532, SCI, Berkshire, 1997.
[5] Burke, M.P., “The Genesis of Integral Bridges in Ohio”, Concrete International, July 1996, page 48-51.
[6] Angust, E.C. and Taylor, D.C., “Current Trends in Bridge Design – The Design of Integral Bridges”,
The Institution of Engineers in Ireland, January 1998.
[7] Greimann, L.F., Yang, P.S. and Wolde-Tinsae, A.M., “Non-linear Analysis of Integral Abutment
Bridges”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 10, October 1986, page 2263-2280.
[8] Kamel, M.R., Benak, J.V., Tadros, M.K. and Jamshidi, M., “Application of Precast, Prestressed Concrete
Piles in Integral Abutment Bridges”, fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference, San
Francisco, California, Vol. 2., August 1995, pages 146-157.
[9] Integral bridges, thesis work Ir. A.T.G. Maijenburg, 2000.
[10] prEN 1991-1-5:2002; Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures, Part 1.5: General Actions – Thermal actions.
[11] ENV 1992-1-1:1991; Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures, Part 1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
[12] ENV 1994-2:1997; Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 2: Composite
bridges.
[13] ENV 1992-2: 1995; Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures, Part 2: Concrete bridges.

Dr. A. Romeijn

Integral Bridge Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Integral Bridge Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CT5125: Steel bridges – file <integral-bridge-design>

16. Integral Bridges

16.1 Characteristics of integral bridges

Fig. 1. Conventional bridge design.

Fig. 2. Integral abutment bridge variations.

In doing so, the troublesome and costly expansion joint/bearing is

Definitions End support Intermediate support

Nederlands Engels Expansion Bearing Expansion Bearing

16. Integral abutments for bridges 230

Fig. 7. Erection of an integral bridge.

16.2 Why integral bridges?

16. Integral abutments for bridges 231

(Structural) component Percentage [%] Observation/ Shortcoming

16. Integral abutments for bridges 232

16.3 Primary differences between integral bridge and “classic” bridge

No bearings and joints

Fig. 10. Example of an integral abutment.

16. Integral abutments for bridges 233

Greater end span ratio ranges

Improved ride quality

Added redundancy and capacity for catastrophic events

- superstructure design; reduction of bending moment and increased stiffness

Tolerance requirements reduced

16. Integral abutments for bridges 234

Joints of the bridge

16.5 Existing (semi) integral bridges in The Netherlands

80 Integral - with additional

16. Integral abutments for bridges 235

Fig. 16. Foundation alternatives of integral bridges.

16. Integral abutments for bridges 236

Fig. 17. Integral bridge Son and Breughel.

For establishing the connection between foundation and deck the

For the planned new highways A50 and

Some examples of steel sections for

16. Integral abutments for bridges 237

Fig. 19. Some examples on steel sections for

16.6 Horizontally soil-structure interaction

16. Integral abutments for bridges 238

450 720 970

1100 800 1000

Soil data for design

Soil from to h γdroog γnat c’ δ φ’ Ka K0 Kp

16. Integral abutments for bridges 239

Fig. 24. Soil type by increasing depth.

Soil layer Site Location Lower bound Upper bound

Shortter Longterm Shortter Longterm

Horizontal displacements at the connection bridge deck – abutment

16. Integral abutments for bridges 240

T2 (t = 56 days: first existence of traffic loads)

(Load)case Phase (utilisation stage)

Forces at the connection bridge deck - abutment

Moment Rotation stiffness (kNm/ rad)

16. Integral abutments for bridges 241

Fig. 25. Sign notations used for the analyses.

rotation stiffness (kNm/rad)

Reaction on horizontal displacement at the connection bridge deck - abutment

lower bound, short term, EI in

16. Integral abutments for bridges 242

normal force (kN) 200

T1 -39,7 -37,7 -549 -528 -250 -243

Total bridge design

Exposure zone Sacrificial thickness [mm]