A PROPOSITION FOR A COMPLEX EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANT ABUTMENT FOR CONTINUOUS DECK

SLAB LONG BRIDGES

Ioannis Tegos, Stergios Mitoulis, Sevasti Tegou

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering, Greece

ABSTRACT
In the present investigation a complex earthquake resistant abutment is proposed.
The abutment is accommodating both serviceability and earthquake resistance re-
quirements of the bridge. The innovation is introduced through the extension of the
slab of the deck onto the backfill and between the wing-walls, and its connection
with transversely directed R/C walls. The extension of the deck slab can either
slide on or be monolithically connected to the aforementioned walls. The resulting
bridge system is jointless, and has explicit advantages concerning durability and
driving convenience. Furthermore, the seismic actions of the piers are effectively
reduced, as a big part of the induced seismic energy is transmitted to the earth-
quake resistant R/C walls. The reduction in the seismic actions of the piers does not
only lead to cost-effective bridges, but also aesthetics are improved, as smaller
cross sections serve the aforementioned objective.

KEYWORDS
bridge, complex abutment, R/C walls, continuous deck slab, earthquake resistance

1 INTRODUCTION
As it is known, the design of bridges has to accommodate both serviceability and
earthquake resistance, which are conflictful components of the same problem and
they impose opposite design requirements. Serviceability, which is mainly critical
for the longitudinal direction of the bridge, requires the free contraction and expan-
sion of the deck, due to the annual thermal cycle, shrinkage, creep and prestress.
On the other hand, the earthquake resistance of bridges is usually enhanced by
monolithical, as possible, connections of the deck with the piers.
102 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

During the last decade the state-of-the-art and practice for R/C bridges worldwide
is related to the construction of systems that are monolithical as possible. In most
bridges the deck is continuous and jointless, [1], and usually two joints are pre-
served only above the abutments. The current bridge engineering practice is also
introducing integral abutment bridges [2],[3] in which a stub-type abutment is im-
plemented in order to minimize the backfill-bridge interaction and by extension to
minimize the known ratcheting effect, [4],[5].
On the other hand, seismic isolation devices are extensively used nowadays. In the
case of bridges, whose deck is supported on bearings, the design philosophy is to
shift the fundamental period of a structure away from the dominant periods of the
earthquake ground motion, [6]. This increase of the fundamental period generally
increases the displacements of the deck. Most seismic codes recommend the use of
energy dissipation devices such as fluid dumpers, which increase the viscous
damping of the system, in order to reduce the aforementioned increase of the
deck’s displacements.
However, the use of the aforementioned seismic devices increases the initial cost of
the bridge. On the other hand, current research is focusing on the known problem
of embankment-bridge interaction which can contribute to the enhancement of the
seismic response of bridge structures. Specifically, current studies, [7],
[8],[9],[10],[11], have investigated this effect and came up to the conclusion that,
generally, the abutment and the backfill can be utilized in order to reduce the
movement of the deck, and, in turn, reduce the structural cost of the bridge, [12].
In the present investigation the seismic performance of bridges is enhanced through
an external restraining system consisting of a complex unconventional abutment.
The abutment includes the extension of the deck slab onto the embankments and its
restrain by transversely directed walls between the wing-walls. The aforementioned
slab is monolithically connected with the walls. The efficiency of the proposed
restraining system is examined by analyzing the seismic response of a river-
crossing bridge in Greece which is considered to be the “reference” bridge.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE “REFERENCE” BRIDGE

In the present investigation the efficiency of the proposed restraining system,
which consists of transversely oriented R/C walls is investigated. A real bridge
whose deck is supported on low damping rubber bearings was developed as the
“reference” case. This bridge, (see Fig. 1), has five spans,
34.75m+3x36.00m+34.75m and a total length equal to 177.50m .The superstruc-
ture consists of six prestressed and precast beams, (see Fig. 2), precast deck slabs
and a cast in-situ part of the slab. The piers are hollow circular sections, (see Fig.
3), and are supported on a pile group which consists of 3x3 piles. The bridge is
founded on Ground Type B and a Peak Ground Acceleration equal to ag=0.24g is
adopted and corresponds to Seismic Zone II, [13]. The importance factor adopted
is equal to γI=1.00, while the behavior factor is equal to q=1 in both directions.
A proposition for a complex earthquake resistant abutment 103

34.75+3x36+36=177.5m

13.60
15.30
16.50
18.20
Fig. 1: Longitudinal section of the “reference” bridge.

14.20

3.00

2.30 2.50

0.50 2.00 0.50

3.00
(b) (c)
Fig. 2: Cross section of the deck at the span. Fig. 3: Cross section of the
hollow piers.

expansion
deck join t

elastomeric
7.5m bearing embankment

Fig. 4: Longitudinal section of the existing conventional abutment.

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED COMPLEX ABUTMENT

In the present study a new configuration of the abutment for earthquake resistant
bridges is proposed (see Fig.5). The resulting complex abutment has the ability to
accommodate both serviceability and earthquake resistance. The innovative con-
figuration of the abutment refers to the extension of the deck slab and its restrain
104 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

extension of the expansion joint (dmax)

deck's slab deck

sliding body
walls bearing
t=0.25m

(a) EPS
8.00 m t=2cm
embankment abutment

0.25
1.50 foundation

foundation
approach slab

walls
(b) t=0.25m backwall

deck

EPS
t=2cm

extension of the deck's slab

Fig. 5:The proposed complex earthquake resistant abutment: (a) Longitudinal section,
(b)Plan view
A proposition for a complex earthquake resistant abutment 105

by transversely directed walls, which are laying between the wing-walls. The
aforementioned slab has a transverse width equal to the distance between the wing-
walls. The walls are rectangular cross- sections and have a height equal to 8.0m.
The distance between the walls is of the order of 2cm and is obtained by the inter-
jection of expanded polystyrene (EPS- geofoam layers).
The in-service allowable cracking of the extension of the deck slab is possible to
accommodate part of the induced constraint movement of the deck. A pre-
determined length of the first span is also possible to develop this cracking. It is
noted that, this technique does not influence the durability of the tendons as they
are located in a lower part of the cross section. The in-service cracking of the deck
slab, which acts as a tension-tie during the contraction of the deck, whereas acts as
a compression strut during the expansion of the deck, is developed by narrow
cracks of the order of 0.1 to 0.2mm, which are allowable in-service, [14]. It is
noted that, the expansion of the deck is not critical for the expansion of the deck
due to the existing cracks in the slab element, which have to be closed in order to
activate its axial stiffness. In any event, the closure of the cracks is an infrequent
occurrence, due to permanent creep and shrinkage of the deck, and the possible
compression of the deck does not affect serviceability. The thickness of this slab,
(t=0.25m), and its reinforcement serves a dual purpose: (a) on the one hand, the
aforementioned cracking of the slab relieves the in-service constraint movement of
the deck, and, (b) on the other hand, protects the deck against high tension stresses,
in the event of an extreme contraction of the deck.

4 MODELLING AND PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION

The stick model of the conventional bridge system, which has a total length equal
to L=177.5m, as well as the modified bridge model, in which the proposed com-
plex abutment is implemented, are given below (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).
The deck, the piers as well as the transversely directed R/C walls were modelled by
frame elements. The flexibility of the foundation was taken into account by using
the impedance factors, which were determined by in-situ geological tests. The ex-
tension of the deck slab was modelled by a frame element whose cross section
was wslabx tslab=14.20m x 0.25m and a multi-linear spring in series (see Fig. 8). This
multi-linear spring corresponds to the seismic response of the extension of the deck
slab for two discrete cases: (a) for the case that the extension of the slab is in ten-
sion and (b) for the case that the extension of the slab is in compression at the be-
ginning of the seismic event. The first case was modelled with a spring whose
stiffness was equal to the axial stiffness of the longitudinal reinforcement of the
slab, while the second case, which is an infrequent occurrence, was modelled by
the resistance of a spring which corresponds to the axial stiffness of the slab. The
analytical investigation was performed by means of non-linear dynamic time his-
tory analysis, implemented with the FE commercial code SAP 2000, [15].
106 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

Fig. 6: The model of the conventional bridge

Fig 7: The model of the modified bridge

Pslab
6435KN
0.0184m 0.0079 m Deflection
y

72000KN

Fig 8: The multi-linear elastic spring which models the resistance of the extension of the
deck slab

The efficiency of the proposed technique was determined by calculating the per-
centage reduction in the longitudinal movement of the conventional bridge deck
(see Fig.6) compared with the movement of the modified bridge deck (see Fig. 7).
The ratio of the percentage reduction (P.R.) of the movements of the deck is given
in equation (1).
u
P.R. = 1 − , E 2 (1)
u, E1
A proposition for a complex earthquake resistant abutment 107

where P.R the ratio of the percentage reduction of the movements of the deck
u,E1 the seismic displacement of the conventional bridge deck
u,E2 the seismic displacement of the modified bridge deck
The selection of the parameters of the present study took into account the in-
service as well as the earthquake resistant requirements of the resulting bridge sys-
tems. Three different parameters were considered:
– The length of the bridge: Bridges of total length equal to L=177.5m and
L=105.5m were analyzed.
– The height of the piers: Bridges whose height of the piers were either equal to
or double that of the piers of the reference bridge, were analyzed in order to
identify the influence of the resisting system on the efficiency of the proposed
bridge structural modifications.
– The Ground Type and the Peak Ground Acceleration: The aforementioned
bridge systems were subjected to corresponding artificial soil A,B and C de-
pendent Eurocode 8 elastic spectra, [13], and two different peak ground accel-
erations ag=0.16g, ag=0.24g were considered.

5 RESULTS
In Fig. 9 the percentage reduction in the movement of the deck for the longitudinal
design earthquake is illustrated for the bridge of L=177.5m. The aforementioned
reductions result from the strong seismic participation of the complex abutment.
Fig. 9(a) corresponds to the bridge whose piers have height equal to the heights of
the piers of the reference bridge, whereas Fig. 9(b) corresponds to the bridge whose
piers have double heights. It can be deduced that the proposed technique reduces
by up to 28% the movements of the deck for the longitudinal design earthquake. In
the case of the bridge with the double height of the piers the longitudinal move-
ments of the deck are reduced by up to 65%.The comparison of the two figures
lead to the conclusion that the proposed complex abutment is more efficient in
flexible bridge systems. This can be attributed to the increased participation of the
complex abutment in the case that the bridge responds with larger displacements.
Respectively, in Fig. 10 the percentage reduction in the movement of the deck for
the transverse design earthquake is illustrated for the bridge of L=177.5m. Fig.
10(a) corresponds to the bridge whose piers have height equal to the reference
bridge, whereas Fig. 10(b) corresponds to the bridge whose piers have double
heights. It can be deduced that the proposed technique reduces by up to 95% the
transverse movements of the deck during the transverse design earthquake.
The investigation of the influence of the Peak Ground Acceleration on the effi-
ciency of the proposed complex abutment showed that the seismicity influences the
restraining effect of the complex abutment when the walls develop hysteretic be-
haviour, i.e. for high seismic actions. However, for lower seismic inertial loads the
hysteretic behaviour of the walls is limited, (see Fig. 9 and Fig. 11). By extension,
 108 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

the seismicity, namely the increase in the peak ground acceleration, does not seem
to increase the efficiency of the abutment. By contrast, the participation of the
transversely directed walls is increased in bridges which are founded on soft
grounds, (see Fig. 9).
longitudinal movement of

longitudinal movement of
100% 100%
Soil:
% Reduction in the

% Reduction in the
80% Soil: 80% Α Β C
Α Β C
the deck

the deck
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2 A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 177.5
Height of the piers (a) equal to the reference bridge, (b)double height
ag 0.16g
Direction of the movement of the deck longitudinal
Fig. 9: The percentage reduction in the longitudinal movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=177.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers, (ag=0.16g)
transverse movement of the
transverse movement of the

100% 100%
Soil:
% Reduction in the

% Reduction in the

80% Soil: 80%

Α Β C
60% Α Β C 60%
deck

deck

40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2 A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 177.5
Height of the piers (a) equal to the reference bridge, (b)double height
ag 0.16g
Direction of the movement of the deck transverse
Fig. 10: The percentage reduction in the transverse movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=177.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers, (ag=0.16g)
A proposition for a complex earthquake resistant abutment 109

longitudinal movement of

longitudinal movement of
100% 100%
Soil:

% Reduction in the

% Reduction in the
80% Soil: 80% Α Β C
Α Β C

the deck

the deck
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2 A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 177.5
Height of the piers (a) equal to the reference bridge, (b)double height
ag 0.24g
Direction of the movement of the deck longitudinal
Fig. 11: The percentage reduction in the longitudinal movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=177.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers, (ag=0.24g)
transverse movement of the

transverse movement of the

100% 100%
Soil:
% Reduction in the

% Reduction in the
80% Soil: 80%
Α Β C
60% Α Β C 60%
deck

deck

40% 40%
20% c 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2 A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 177.5
Height of the piers (a) equal to the reference bridge,.(b)double height
ag 0.24g
Direction of the movement of the deck transverse
Fig. 12: The percentage reduction in the transverse movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=177.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers (ag=0.24g)

In Fig. 13 the percentage reduction in the movement of the deck for the longitudi-
nal design earthquake is illustrated for the bridge of L=105.5m. Fig. 13(a) corre-
sponds to the bridge whose piers have heights equal to the heights of the piers of
the reference bridge, whereas Fig. 13(b) corresponds to the bridge whose piers
have double heights. It can be deduced that the proposed technique reduces by up
to 38% the movements of the deck during the longitudinal design earthquake. In
the case of the bridge with the double height of the piers the longitudinal move-
110 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

ments of the deck are reduced by up to 70%. Respectively, in Fig. 14 the percent-
age reduction in the movement of the deck for the transverse design earthquake is
illustrated for the bridge of L=105.5m. It can be deduced that the proposed tech-
nique reduces by up to 95% the transverse movements of the deck during the trans-
verse design earthquake.
Finally, the investigation of the influence of the Peak Ground Acceleration on the
efficiency of the proposed complex abutment showed that the seismicity does not
influence significantly the restraining effect of the complex abutment.

longitudinal movement of
longitudinal movement of

100% 100%
Soil: Soil:

% Reduction in the
% Reduction in the

80% Α Β C 80% Α Β C

the deck
the deck

60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 A2 A1 P1 P2 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 105.5
Height of the piers (a) equal to the reference bridge, (b)double height
ag 0.16g
Direction of the movement of the deck longitudinal
Fig. 13: The percentage reduction in the longitudinal movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=105.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers, (ag=0.16g)
transverse movement of the
transverse movement of the

100% 100%
% Reduction in the
% Reduction in the

80% 80%
60% Soil: 60% Soil:
deck

deck

Α Β C Α Β C
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
A1 P1 P2 A2 A1 P1 P2 A2
Joint of the deck Joint of the deck
(a) (b)
Length of the bridge (m) 105.5
Height of the piers (a)equal to the reference bridge, (b)double height
ag 0.16g
Direction of the movement of the deck transverse
Fig. 14: The percentage reduction in the transverse movement of the deck for the bridge
of L=105.5m: (a) Heights of the piers equal to the heights of the piers of the reference
bridge and (β) double heights of the piers, (ag=0.16g)
A proposition for a complex earthquake resistant abutment 111

6 CONCLUSIONS
In the present study a new type of a complex earthquake resistant abutment was
parametrically investigated as far as concerns its efficiency in enhancing the seis-
mic actions of bridges. The abutment has the ability to accommodate the in-service
movements of the deck, by means of its walls flexibility and by the in-service al-
lowable cracking of the approaching slab. The resulting complex bridge system
seismic response is enhanced as a big part of the induced seismic energy is dissi-
pated in the complex abutment, which has the ability to restrain the free longitudi-
nal and transverse movement of the deck of the bridge. The investigation reached
the following conclusions:
– The proposed configuration of the abutment with the earthquake resistant R/C
walls can be implemented in all bridge types. The resulting bridge system is
jointless, and has explicit advantages concerning durability and driving conven-
ience.
– The in-service constraint movements of the deck are arranged by the flexibility
of the walls, as well as by the allowable cracking of the extension of the deck
slab.
– The proposed abutment effectively reduces the displacements of the deck and
by extension the seismic actions of the piers, their foundations and the actions
of the bearings. The aforementioned reduction is of the order of 30% for the
longitudinal and 90% for the transverse design earthquake for bridges with a to-
tal length equal to L=177.5m. In the case of shorter bridges (L=105.5m), the
corresponding reductions are 40% and 95% for the longitudinal and transverse
design earthquake correspondingly.
– The methodology is more efficient in bridges which respond with large dis-
placements, namely in bridges founded on soft ground and/or bridges whose
earthquake resisting system is flexible, i.e. bridges with tall piers.
– The seismicity influences the restraining effect when the R/C walls of the com-
plex abutment develop hysteretic behaviour, i.e. for high seismic actions. How-
ever, for lower seismic loading the hysteretic behaviour of the walls is limited
and by extension, the seismicity does not seem to increase the efficiency of the
abutment.
– The analytical investigation of the influence of the R/C walls’ height concluded
that the implementation of a 8.0m-height walls offers the optimum in-service
and seismic performance of the complex abutment.

REFERENCES
[1] Seidl B.A., Weizenegger G., Frame structures in bridge construction. Design,
analysis and economic considerations, International Workshop on the bridges
112 Tegos I., Mitoulis S., Tegou S.

with integral abutments, Topics of relevance for the INTAB project, Technical
Report, 2006:14.
[2] The 2005-FHWA Conference, Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges (IAJB
2005,) March 16 – 18, Baltimore, Maryland, 2005.
[3] Mistry V.C., Integral abutment bridges, Conference of High Performance Steel
Bridge Others, Nov 30-Dec 1, Baltimore Maryland, 2000.
[4] Horvath J.S., The compressible-inclusion function of EPS Geofoam: An over-
view of concepts, Applications and Products, Manhattan College Research Re-
port No.CE/GE-98-1, 1998.
[5] Horvath J.S., The compressible-inclusion function of EPS Geofoam: Analysis
and design methodologies, Manhattan College Research Report No. CE/GE-
98-2, New York, USA, 1998.
[6] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 2: Bridges,
2003.
[7] Kotsoglou A., Pantazopoulou S., Bridge-embankment interaction under trans-
verse ground excitation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol-
ume 36, Issue 12, Date: 10 October 2007, p. 1719-1740.
[8] Mylonakis, G, Simeonov, V.K., Reinhorn, A.M., and Buckle, I.G., Implications
of Spatial Variation of Ground Motion on the Seismic Response of Bridges:
Case Study, ACI International - Special Publication SP-187 (K. Krishnan Edi-
tor), 299-327, 1999.
[9] Zhang, J. and Makris, N., Seismic Response Analysis of Highway Overcross-
ings Including Soil-Structure Interaction, PEER Report 2001/02, 2001.
[10] Zhang, J., and Makris, N., Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiff-
nesses of bridge embankments, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 1933–1966,
2002.
[11] Mitoulis S. A., Reduction in seismic actions of bridges by utilizing the re-
straining effect of the abutment and the backfill, PhD. Dissertation A.U.TH,
2007.
[12] Nutt R.V. and Mayes R.L., Comparison of Typical Bridge Columns Seismi-
cally Designed With and Without Abutment Participation Using AASHTO Di-
vision I-A and Proposed AASHTO LRFD Provisions, Task F3-1(a),2000.
[13] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, 2003.
[14] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 2: Bridges, 2004.
[15] Computers and Structures Inc.SAP 2000 Nonlinear Version 8.1.1.User’s Ref-
erence Manual, Berkeley, California, 2002.