PROJECT :- 4-laning of Aligarh-Kanpur section

(Package-III from Kalyanpur- Naviganj) of NH-91

in the state of Uttar Pradesh on Hybrid Annuity
Mode under Bharatmala Pariyojana.
 4-laning of Aligarh-Kanpur section (Package-III from Kalyanpur- Naviganj) of
NH-91 in the state of Uttar Pradesh on Hybrid Annuity Mode under Bharatmala
Pariyojana.

Sandeep Kumar Anupan Mishra Ravi Kumar Agrahari

Director Technical Senior Bridge Engineer Bridge Design Engineer
CivilMantra Infracon Pvt. Ltd CivilMantra Infracon Pvt. Ltd CivilMantra Infracon Pvt. Ltd
Projects@civilmantra.com Engineering@civilmantra.com Structures@civilmantra.com

Sandeep Kumar, born 1982
received his civil engineering
degree from KNIT Sultanpur in
2004 & Master from IIT Kanpur
in 2006 .
He is the Director Technical in
CivilMantra Infracon Pvt.
Ltd , responsible for all type
bridge
Anupam Mishra , born 1982 ,
received his civil engineering
degree from IIT delhi , New
delhi 2007 .
He is the Senior Bridge
Engineer in CivilMantra
Infracon Pvt. Ltd ,
responsible for all type bridge
Ravi Kumar Agrahari, born
1982 ,received his civil
engineering degree from NIT
Durgapur (WB) in 2004 &
Master from University of Delhi
in 2010 .
He is the Bridge Design
Engineer in CivilMantra
Infracon Pvt.
Ltd , responsible for all type
bridge

Summary
The usage of TechAbutment® (Reinforced Earth true
abutment and herein after called “Bridge
Abutment”) has gradually increased worldwide
because of simple, rapid and predictable
construction process which results into strong,
durable and economical structure. This is tensively
used in many parts of the world, and there is a lot
more opportunities available in DBFOT projects
and new applications. This paper describes design
considerations, procedure and
underpass structures on NH7. The clear opening
size of the structure is 12m x 5.5m. The dimensions
200kPa under serviceability condition and external
stability & internal stability checks were performed
for the whole structure. Operational procedure
involved in construction of true abutment helped
without any hassle. This paper also describes

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014 59

about the challenges faced and the complexities
involved in detailing and design.
Keywords: Reinforced Earth, true abutment,
beam seat, reinforcement, HA steel strip,
inextensible
1. Introduction
JMC Projects (India) Ltd. was awarded the task
of 4 laning of Rewa to MP/UP Border section
of NH-7 from Km. 22.9/10 to Km. 140/6 under
DBFOT model by Madhya Pradesh State Road
Development Corporation ( M.P.S.R.D.C. ). The
work was awarded by JMC Projects to M/s. Dilip
Photo 1 : Project alignment and completed picture of
Bridge Abutment structure
Buildcon Ltd on EPC basis. The work involved 4
laning of 89 Km. stretch from Rewa towards MP/
and 16 Vehicular underpass structures. Initially,
most of the VUPs were planned with conventional
RCC box structure with Reinforced Earth wing
walls and conventional earthen embankments,
as approach road.
60 Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014
When Reinforced Earth India Pvt Ltd. was
approached by M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd for the
Reinforced Earth wall work for this project,
considering the tight work schedule REI proposed
to use of Reinforced Earth true Abutment with
Post Tensioned slabs as an alternative to the
conventional RCC box structures for VUPs. The
scheme was presented to JMC Projects and was
readily accepted by JMC and it was decided to
the NH-7 has village roads merging/crossing with
218, Km. 193, Km. 197 and Km. 147.
There was high super elevation required in all
the VUP structures which was relatively simple
in Bridge Abutment structures. The typical
arrangement detail of structure is shown below
in Figure 1.
Fig. 1: Typical elevation view of VUP .
2. Bridge Abutment Reinforced Earth
Structures
Reinforced Earth® was invented in 1957 by the
French engineer and architect Sir Henri Vidal,
in Europe in 1967. This new, patented technology
was so versatile and cost effective that its use
spread rapidly in the early 1970s to more than 30
countries throughout the world.
The basic principle of Reinforced Earth
technology can be explained by Figure 2. As
shown in Figure 2a, an axial load on a sample of
granular material will result in lateral expansion in
dense materials. Because of dilation, the lateral
strain is more than one-half the axial strain.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
 Fig. 2 : Principle of soil reinforcement
However, if inextensible horizontal reinforcing
elements are placed within the soil mass, as
shown in Figure 2b, these reinforcements will
prevent lateral strain because of friction between
the reinforcing elements and the soil, and the
behaviour will be as if a lateral restraining force
or load had been imposed on the element.
This equivalent lateral load on the soil element
is equals to the earth pressure at rest (Ko v).
Each element of the soil mass is acted upon
by a lateral stress equals to Ko v. Therefore,
as the vertical stress increases, the horizontal
restraining stress or lateral force also increases
in direct proportion.
Reinforced Earth is, therefore, a composite
material, combining the compressive and
the tensile strength of horizontal, inextensible
reinforcements.
Bridge Abutment is a Reinforced Earth structure
with a spread footing resting directly on top of the
footing rests only on the reinforced soil and is not
supported by piles or other structural members.
Abutment bearing pressure is transferred directly
into the reinforced soil and, depending on the
height of the Reinforced Earth structure; either
is fully dissipated within the reinforced soil or is
distributed through it to the site foundation soil
below.
Fig. 3 : Typical sitting arrangement for True Bridge
Abutment
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
Photo 2 : Typical sitting arrangement of bridge deck
over reinforced earth structure
3. Soil Reinforcing Structural Elements
Considering the serviceability and settlement
criterion for bridges, the Bridge Abutment
structures are constructed with inextensible
soil reinforcements using High Adherence
Galvanised Steel strips. The strips have a
adherence of the strip when placed within a
of friction
conservatively estimated from AFNOR NF P 94-
sheets’ (July 1992).
The reinforcing strips used by Reinforced Earth
India Pvt Ltd for design of pure abutment are
High Adherence (HA) steel strips with a minimum
ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 630N/mm2 and
yield strength of 480N/mm2 for HA 504 complying
with the minimum requirements of ASTM A572 –
93 Gr 65. High adherence (HA) steel strips are
used in the design of 50mm wide by 4.0mm thick
(HA504). The strips are connected to the facing
panel with a positive mechanical double shear
connection by means of a bolt passing through
a lug (UTS 490 N/mm2 Grade S 355 JR, BSEN
10025:1993) cast into the back of the panel and a
13mm diameter hole punched through the strip.
High Adherence (HA) Strips are galvanized, hot
rolled steel strip with transverse ridges.
The design life of the structure is based on the
durability of steel strips. The guidance criterion
is loss of thickness of reinforcement steel due
to corrosion over its design life. This thickness
Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014 61

used to calculate the strength of the reinforcing
steel strips at the end of the design life. For
steel strips galvanised with 1000g/m2 of zinc,
0.65mm on each exposed face. Taking account
tolerances, a partial material factor (fm) on the
tensile strength of 1.5 and a partial factor (fn)
strength for HA504 strip at full section is 48.66kN
and 42.89kN at the connection.
4. Challenges during design and
construction
structures where Bridge Abutment have
been constructed with different geometrical
arrangements due to variation in highway
alignment. The preparation of detailing was very
critical and requires accuracy in dimensions,
proceeding with detail design unlike any normal
Reinforced Earth® structures. The co-ordination
very important to avoid any mistake during
design stage and for successful completion of
the project.
The construction involves casting of special cut
panels, erection, casting of slab, post-tensioning
casting of special cut panels and to ensure good
accuracy in casting (Refer typical elevation
view in Figure 4). This was important for easy
installation, to avoid any mismatch at later stage
of construction and good aesthetics.
Fig. 4: The elevation view of Reinforced Earth true
abutment showing panel detailing
62 Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014
5. Post tensioned slabs
The VUP slab was proposed to be Post tensioned
slab with 750mm thick cast in place reinforced
concrete. The slab was designed, supplied and
installed by Freyssinet Menard India P. Ltd. which
is a subsidiary of the same group company like
Reinforced Earth India P. Ltd. It is also possible
to adopt the same technology with pre-cast slab
| girder on top.
The entire onsite work of construction of each
Bridge Abutment structures with approach ramps
was completed within a short period of 4 months.
With construction of both end bank seats and
deck slab the overall 5 vehicular underpass
structure was completed by May 2014.
6. Design of true abutment structure
6.1 Design principal and concept
A Reinforced Earth Abutment essentially consists
of conventional Reinforced Earth Retaining wall
designed to support the earth pressures behind
it, as well as the heavy, concentrated vertical
and horizontal surcharge loads imposed on it by
Superstructure loads are transmitted by a
reinforced concrete beam seat which distributes
the stresses to the reinforced earth structure.
There are two types of Bridge Abutment viz, “true
abutment” and “mixed/false abutments”. In a “true
abutment”, the bridge beams are supported on a
spread footing called ‘bank seat’ or ‘beam seat’
which is directly rested on reinforced earth mass.
In a “mixed or false abutment”, the bridge beams
are rested on a RCC cap supported by a group
of piles which are embedded inside reinforced
earth mass. “True Abutment” type was selected
in this project because of cost effectiveness and
less construction efforts when compared with
“mixed abutment” or box structure.
in the structure. Since, True Abutments are
quite sensitive to differential settlements, it is
material. In this project, crushed stone mixed
with soil materials with particle size distribution
The Bridge and Structural Engineer

20 kN/m3
were considered in the design. However, a well
750mm thick underneath beam seat.
Inextensible soil-reinforcement in the form of High
strips were used because of obvious and proven
advantages over polymeric reinforcements.
Since HA steel strips do not stretch under design
loading, they are preferred reinforcement type
for critical structures like true abutment where
deformation and settlement control is crucial to
structural performance. The Bridge Abutment
was designed according to the coherent gravity
method outlined in chapter 6 of BS 8006:1995
and analyzed based on the TAI’s research
results obtained after study of model scale and
full-scale structures supplemented by numerical/
complex geometries and loads that are very
typical for Bridge Abutments. The research
study has led to the development of the design
method which is predictable and conservative.
The design was completed using in-house
developed software “Zarus 3.0”.
To start with the design activities, the un-factored
forces from dead load of bridge, live load
reactions, inertia of bridge dead loads, reactions
due to creep, shrinkage and temperature effects,
and soil properties were obtained from the
structural designer. The partial load factors for
cases A, B and C for static case as shown in
Table 18 of BS 8006:1995 were considered for
calculation of factored forces.
Apart from True Abutment design, the underpass
structures were also to be designed for sloped
wing wall. True abutment was required only for
closing walls and 50% of return wing walls. The
bridge loading effect on part of return wing walls
has been considered as per load distribution
recommended in Figure 44 A of BD 70/03 Part
5 which is now included in latest version of BS
8006-1 :2010, Figure 46. The rest of the return
wing walls were designed for normal highway
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
condition with slope surcharge, but without any
effect of bridge loading on it.
Because of difference in formation levels on both
side of the underpass location due to the super
elevation, the True Abutment walls on either side
were to be designed for different facia heights,
whereas, the surcharge height ‘H2’, of 1.53m
kept same for all underpass structures.
The beam seat dimensions have been selected
in such a way that, the contact bearing pressure
imparted to reinforced earth mass was as uniform
as possible and should be less than 200kPa
under serviceability limit state (without any live
load) as described in French standard NF P94-
270 guidelines. Also, the centreline of bearing
face of facia that results in a negligible amount of
settlement under the beam seat. The beam seat
vertical and horizontal forces acting on the beam
beneath beam seat was calculated considering
Meyerhof’s theory and simultaneously sliding &
overturning checks were also performed against
the unfavourable loads during its service life and
construction.
The initial sizing of true abutment in terms of
facing height, steel strip length(L), foundation
depth were considered based on available data
of bridge and beam seat dimensions. The steel
strip length (L) was calculated as greater of
either [0.60*(H1+H2) + 2mtr] or 7mtr from the
table 19 of BS 8006:1995. The reference height
(Hr) of true abutment in terms of facing height,
beam seat height and its bearing pressure, were
calculated.
Wm = Weight of Reinforced
Earth mass
Wr = Weight of Road Crust
above RE mass
mass
Ws = Dead Weight of Beam
seat
Wg = Dead Weight of Backwall
Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014 63

Wt
Fv = Dead Load of the Bridge
Fh = Permanent Load due to shrinkage or Creep of
Concrete
Qh = Fh + P1 + Pq1
Fig. 5 : a) Difference super structure forces acting on
True Abutment, b)Beam seat dimension and sitting
arrangement detail
6.2 External Stability
The external stability checks are done for both
beam seat arrangement and then reinforced
considered which includes 3 cases as given
in BS 8006:1995. The other two cases were
considered as temporary cases to indicate
loading during construction and maintenance
stages. The applications of loads in different
Cases 1, 2, and 3 above replicates cases A, B
and C in BS 8006:1995. Generally, load factor
combination in case 1 gives maximum values
of all loads and hence, generates maximum
reinforcement tension and foundation bearing
pressure. Load factor combination in case 2
gives maximum overturning loads together with
minimum self-mass of reinforced earth structure
and hence, dictates worst case for sliding,
overturning at base and pull-out. In case 3, the
combination considers only dead load without
any partial load factors and hence, generally used
to check bearing pressure below beam seat and
foundation settlements under serviceability limit
state. Case 4 and Case 5 load combination gives
higher earth pressure from retained zone and
minimum self-mass of True abutment structure
and hence, adherence between steel strip and
soil would be a worst case here. Case 5 considers
64 Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014
a change in bearing position under maintenance
condition i.e. placing of jacks at 1.30m against
to a bearing distance of 1.50m for inspection
different cases including seismic conditions were
computed with relevant load factors using in-
house software “Zarus 3.0”. However, the load
case 4 and 5 were not documented in the design
report as these represents temporary cases
and also, were not part of BS 8006:1995. The
live load of 24 kPa was assumed to be acting
on and behind the reinforced soil and has been
denoted as “q1” and “q2” here respectively. The
overdesign factors obtained for sliding (both
in reinforced earth and foundation soil) and
overturning in case 2 which has a critical load
combinations, were found to be satisfactory.
Though, calculated minimum foundation
depth required was 650mm, a higher depth of
1.2m from service road level was considered
conservatively. A levelling pad of 350x150mm
was placed for placing and aligning Reinforced
Earth panels.
Fig. 6: Application of different load combinations
acting on True Abutment
6.3 Internal Stability
6.3.1 Superimposition of Stresses
Because of bridge loading and retaining wall,
the stress calculation procedures inside true
abutment structure are more complex than any
normal reinforced earth structure without unusual
geometries. In order to generate an internal
stability analysis, stresses from bridge loading
( 12) and retaining wall ( 11) were superimposed
based on TAI’s earlier experimental data and
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
 The total vertical stress, 1, is calculated by
arising from bridge vertical loading were to be adding two stresses, 11 and 12. A typical
distributed within the reinforced volume based superimposition of two stresses is shown in

An additional stress ‘ 3’ due to horizontal force

upto a depth equivalent to a distance of heel of

beam seat from the back face of facia. Because
of this additional stress, the requirement of HA
steel strips were more at top layers due to pull
out than when compared with normal reinforced
earth walls.
Hence, the total horizontal stress, hi, at any
given layer was calculated as follows:
= K*( + 12) +
(x, y) = qsi [F(ti1) – F(ti2)] hi 11 3

Where, F(t) = 6.3.2 Potential Failure Surfaces

til =
because of bridge loading condition and, second,
because of retaining wall condition. Due to bridge

Fig. 7: Principle of distribution of vertical loads

according to Boussinesq BS 8006:1995. Line 1 originates at the center
of beam seat and intersects an imaginary line
As vertical stresses from surcharge loading which runs from heel of beam seat to facia at 2:1
diffuse with depth, the centre of gravity of slope and continues to run towards facia with the
Boussinesq stress distribution moves away same slope.
from the wall facing towards rear side. The .
horizontal forces applied to the beam seat from
the superstructure and horizontal earth pressure
behind the beam seat creates an increasing
overturning moment. The stresses arising from
earth retention was calculated considering
Meyerhof’s method from standard reinforced
earth wall criteria, i.e. 11=Rv/(L-2e).

Tf = 2b * w (z, x) dx
Where, b = width of steel strip in meter
la = lal or La2 in meter
f* varies between 1.50 @ v = 0 and tan ( 1) @
Fig. 8: a) Superimposition of stresses from retaining v
wall & bridge loads; Figure 8b: Variation of
Fig. 9: Maximum Tension Line 1 and Line 2 and
of additional stress due to horizontal force; Adherence lengths La1 and La2 for a True Abutment

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014 65

Due to earth retaining condition, the potential
failure line “line 2” of true abutment shall be
similar to that observed in normal reinforced
earth walls i.e. a log spiral assumed as a bilinear
curve which originates at toe of wall as shown
would change with change in the beam seat
dimension. Wider the beam seat, the line of
maximum tension line moves away from the face
of wall towards heel of beam seat. The tension in
the strip is calculated along both the failure line
and the maximum tension is considered in the
design to calculate the required number of strips
6.3.3 Adherence
The pull out failure occurs when the tensile
Photo 3 : Photographs of completed structures
66 Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014
forces becomes larger than the force required to
pull the reinforcement out of the soil mass. So,
pull out resistance ‘Tf’ was calculated for each
of two potential failure lines “line 1” and “line 2”
over adherence length “La” (i.e. “La1” and “La2”
respectively) using the formula given in Figure 9.
The obtained pull out resistances were checked
against corresponding tensile stresses “Tm1”
& “Tm2”, and the respective overdesign factors
were determined from Tf1/Tm1 and Tf2/Tm2. It
was observed that the least factor thus obtained
was always belongs to line 2 and hence, the ratio
‘Tf2/Tm2’ was shown in the report.
The structures will be monitored for their long term
durability performance by extracting the dummy
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
View publication stats
strips already placed inside the reinforced earth
The authors, in due course of time are also
interested to further publish the research work of
such long term durability performance test.
7. Conclusions
Reinforced earth structure using inextensible HA
steel strip reinforcement can be designed and
constructed to support any load bearing structure
subjected to both vertical and horizontal forces
such as true abutment. The use of HA steel strip
reinforcement for such load bearing structures
proved to be satisfactory to meet both limit state
and serviceability limit state criteria due to its
unique advantage of negligible elongation under
working load conditions. The use of appropriate
grade of steel is equally important to meet the
long term durability requirement of the structure.
The design of Bridge Abutment structures
requires good co-ordination with the structural
designer, specialized technology provider and
the contractor. It is also important to identify
critical conditions that may arise during the
phase of construction and must be included
arrangement drawings and as per actual ground
condition. The foundation shall be checked for
both bearing capacity as well as for settlement
to meet the serviceability criteria. The total
The Bridge and Structural Engineer
settlement is not critical but the post construction
settlement (after installation of bridge deck) shall
be limited to 50mm.
The construction drawings, methodology and
detailing plays very important role for accurate
pre-casting, quality construction, good aesthetics
and successful completion of the structure by
eliminating any human error during execution.
The rapid, simple and cost advantage of
opportunities for civil engineering construction.
Though the basic design of usual reinforced earth
and True Abutment remains same, the latter part
is more complex in superimposing stresses due
to vertical and horizontal loads and more load
combinations.
8. References
1. BS 8006:1995 – Code of practice for
2. FHWA NHI-10-024 (2009) – Design and
Construction Of Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
3. French standard NF P 94-220, July 1992
strips or sheets
4. Indian Standard 1893 (Part 1):2002 –
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures
Volume 44 Number 3 September 2014 67