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

net/publication/322107739

Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement — A Case Study and

Scenario Analysis

Article  in  International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics · December 2017

DOI: 10.1142/S0219455418400114

CITATIONS READS

0 958

7 authors, including:

Chunwei Zhang Maryam Ghodrat

Qingdao University of Technology UNSW Canberra
83 PUBLICATIONS   267 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

B. Samali
University of Technology Sydney
151 PUBLICATIONS   2,023 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bridge Engineering and Asset Management View project

Design criteria for blast loading in the Australian environment with special reference to controlled and uncontrolled implosions. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Rashidi on 02 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics
Vol. 18, No. 8 (2018) 1840011 (20 pages)
#.c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219455418400114

Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement — A

Case Study and Scenario Analysis

Maria Rashidi*,¶, Chunwei Zhang†,||, Maryam Ghodrat*, Shaun Kempton‡,

Bijan Samali*, Ali Akbarnezhad§ and Limeng Zhu†
*Western Sydney University, NSW, Australia
†
Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China
‡
John Holland Pty Ltd, NSW, Australia
§University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
¶
m.rashidi@westernsydney.edu.au
||zhangchunwei@qut.edu.cn

Received 28 April 2017

Accepted 18 August 2017
Published 28 December 2017

Movement of bridge abutment is a signi¯cant issue a®ecting the overall reliability and safety of
the structure. However, despite considerable consequences, potential movement of abutment is
usually not considered in design of bridges for serviceability and abutments are generally
designed as ¯xed elements. Theoretical analysis of bridge abutment and deck design provides
background knowledge of reactions that should be anticipated and accounted for. Case studies
of bridges experiencing movements and rotations show that practical outcomes often deviate
from theoretical expectations. The research presented in this paper, aims to develop a better
understanding of abutment stability from both a design and maintenance point of view. This
paper includes an in-depth case study of the Kanahooka Road Overbridge in New South Wales,
Australia. The results of a full bridge inspection leading to identi¯cation of multiple service-
ability issues caused by movement of abutments are presented. Moreover, a systematic meth-
odology is implemented, to identify potential remedial options for treatment of abutment
movement. The knowledge gained through this case study has led to the development of a model
for the management of abutment movement.

Keywords: Bridge; abutment movement; approach settlement; remedial planning.

1. Introduction
Bridge abutment is a complicated substructure which requires a great deal of
maintenance throughout its service life.1 Due to the considerable associated costs,
reducing the maintenance required for bridge abutment is highly demanding and a
topic of worldwide interest.2 The extensive maintenance required has been attributed

|| Corresponding author.

1840011-1
M. Rashidi et al.

partly to inadequacy of design procedures in terms of predicting the forces imposed

on bridges during their surface life. Depending on the level of loads, this could lead to
di®erent degrees of failure, as characterized by limit state.3
The ultimate limit state occurs when the structure of abutment turns unstable.
Example situations where this type of limit applies include overall instability, sliding,
overturning and capacity failure.4 Serviceability limit state, on the other hand,
occurs when an abutment fails due to factors such as deterioration or deformation.1
The main situations involve vibration, cracking and lateral movement. Bridge
abutments can be subjected to several kinds of failure and the failure can occur in a
member of a structure or in the soil. Figure 1 summarizes the main causes of abut-
ment failure identi¯ed in available literature.5
Table 1 summarizes the common modes and causes of the failure of the bridge
abutment as highlighted in the available literature.3 As shown, in a general cate-
gorization, the abutment failure can be classi¯ed into lateral or sliding movement,
tipping or rotational movement, vertical movement or settlement, and also failure of
materials related to abutment.3
However, despite its considerable consequences, risk of abutment movement is not
generally considered in design of bridges. In theory, bridge abutments are designed as
¯xed members, while bridge decks are designed to expand and contract with load.6
Furthermore, there is currently a lack of systematic procedure for dealing with the
damages caused by movement of abutments in practice. A lack of clear guidelines on

Fig. 1. Issues that causes the failure of abutment.5

1840011-2
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

Table 1. Modes and causes of abutment failure.

Abutment failure modes Cause of problem

Rotational movement of abutment
Sliding movement of abutment
(Lateral movement)
Vertical movement of abutment of
settlement or expansion at abutment
Failure of materials related to abutment
— Scouring.
— Back¯ll material saturated with water.
— Back¯ll erosion on the side of abutment.
— Inadequate design.
— Consolidation settlement.
— Thermal movement.
— Change in Characteristics of soil.
— Slope failure.
— Time consolidation of original soil.
— Seepage on back¯ll.
— Excessive lateral pressures.
— Swelling pressure from expansive soil.
— Failure of soil-bearing.
— Consolidation of soil.
— Swelling of supporting material.
— Scouring.
— Deterioration of ground structural elements
due to corrosion.
— Fungus or insect attack.
— Chemical reactions.
— Settlement of soil beneath.
— Bad bridge drainage.
— Debris.
— Cracks on mortar.
— Standing water.
— Missing stones or elements.
— Scour.
— Fungus and insect attack.

preventive measures to alleviate the risk of abutment movement, as well as remedial

measures to deal with the potential damages caused is evident in the literature.1
In this paper, the importance of accounting for potential lateral movement of
abutments in design of bridges is illustrated through a case study. Full inspection
of the case bridge is conducted to highlight the damages caused by movement
of abutments. Furthermore, a methodology for evaluation of various remedial
options is presented through the case study to address the issues caused by movement
of abutment.

2. Case Study
The case study considered in this paper is a 40 years old beam and slab super-
structure road over bridge, located at Kanahooka, New South Wales, Australia.
It consists of a ‘T' type post tensioned section, accommodating four lanes of tra±c
and two pedestrian walkways. The overall length of the bridge is 78.53 m, comprising
of three continuously supported spans, two end spans of 18.7 m and a central span of
39 m. It includes two end abutments and two piers. The bridge runs east to west and

1840011-3
M. Rashidi et al.

Fig. 2. Schematic section of the bridge.

is located on top of a small hill. The sectional shape of the bridge is shown
schematically in Fig. 2.

2.1. Soil inspection

A combination of the soil pro¯le and the use of steel work slag in the road as an
aggregate are thought to be the major cause of the problems of the Kanahooka Road
Overbridge. Research revealed that the road pavement uses slag from Bluescope
Steelworks as an aggregate, which is commonly used in roads throughout the
Illawarra region.
There are two types of slag that are used in combination on such roads; blast
furnace slag and steel furnace slag. While blast Furnace slag has no expansive
properties, steel Furnace slag may expand considerably over time as its free lime
content reacts with water.7 The bore test result records indicate that the soil mainly
consists of clay, silty clay and ¯nally hard diorite as a base. The clay itself is not free
draining and as such water will stay in the system and causes further expansion. This
combination of the steel furnace slag and the soil pro¯le is thought to be the cause of
soil expansion and a subsequent increase in lateral pressures that ultimately has
caused the bridge abutments to move.

2.2. Inspection of bridge deck and approaches

Problems attributed to the bridge deck and road approaches are often the most
obvious to the inspecting engineer because they are easily identi¯able and apparent.
The extensive cracking occurs on both approach sections of road, and encom-
passing all four lanes and extending 30–40 m on the western approach and 25–30 m
on the eastern approach (see Fig. 3). Individual cracks range from 3–15 mm wide and
in some cases 50–60 mm deep (see Fig. 4). This type of cracking is attributed to a
localized problem with the makeup of the road grade and sub-grade.
The abutments movement is obvious upon inspection. The western approach
section of road leading onto the bridge decking. It is observed that western side of the
section joint is elevated signi¯cantly from the eastern side which is supported by the

1840011-4
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

Fig. 3. Cracking and pavement damage on western approach. (Photos courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

Fig. 4. Cracks in pavement. (Photo courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

bridge abutment. This indicates two things; ¯rst, the surrounding soils have pushed
up against the abutment, and second, that the abutment reduced level has fallen.
Aside from the obvious problem of the bridge deformation, this causes problems in
itself as the road is no longer a smooth riding surface for tra±c (see Fig. 5). As a
result of this the tra±c almost falls onto the decking platforms which will further
increase the resulting load particularly dynamic loads created by impact. The
abutment movement has a collateral e®ect on the various elements of the system.
The expansion gap has also completely closed. Typically, this gap is su±cient to
allow for the average change in length due to temperature and typical loading. As the
gap no longer exists, further movement cannot be allowed for and damage to the
structure occurs, most obviously shown in the bridge abutments. During the in-
spection it was con¯rmed that all such expansion gaps had closed to a similar extent,
indicating that the movement that has occurred is substantial and has occurred for a
signi¯cant time period (see Fig. 6).

1840011-5
M. Rashidi et al.

Fig. 5. Western approach road leading onto bridge deck. (Photo courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Kanahooka Road Overbridge: (a) Expansion Gap on side footpath. (b) Expansion Gap on road-
way. (Photos courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

2.3. Inspection of bridge abutment

The functions of a bridge abutment are to transmit the reactions from the super-
structure to the foundation, and to retain the earth embankment of the approach
roadway. In this sense the Kanahooka Road Overbridge abutments are typical al-
though they are large in size to accommodate the large amount of earth behind the
structure.
In essence, the lateral loading that the structure was designed to withstand has
been exceeded. This has caused the abutments to move and prop the deck against the
headstock causing loading that has not been incorporated in the design of the
structure.
The structural cracking around the headstock is obvious and is apparent in both
abutments. In addition to the cracking, it is observed that concrete spalling has
exposed the reinforcement. As the steel is now exposed to the outside environment, it
becomes increasingly likely that corrosion of the steel will take place, which in turn
will further weaken the structure. Similar damage is also apparent in the inner
curtainwall of both abutments (see Fig. 7).
Comparable to the outside of the headstock, signi¯cant cracking is apparent in all
sections of the curtainwall in addition to the structural damage of the chipped

1840011-6
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. (a) Cracking on eastern abutment headstock, northside, (b) Cracking on eastern abutment headstock,
southside, (c) Structural damage western abutment, northside. (Photos courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

Fig. 8. Eastern abutment back¯ll retaining wall. (Photos courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

concrete. Inspection of the abutment retaining wall uncovered an important factor in

the bridge investigation. There is a gap and a variation in height between the
retaining wall and the abutment itself. Because of this gap it can be surmized that
the system is moving in an eastern direction, which indicates that the problems
occurring are caused on the western side of the bridge. The drop in height is most
likely the soil falling into the gap caused by the movement which in itself is causing
damage to the retaining wall through the subsidence of the underneath soils. It is
interesting to note that the movement sustained is greater on the northern side when
compared to the southern end. This slight rotation of the movement can be attrib-
uted to the bridge foundations skewed from parallel, resulting from the pressure on
the abutment being non uniform (see Fig. 8).

2.4. Inspection of bridge bearing

Bearings used in bridge structures are commonly subject to di®erent types of damage
including, shearing, failure of the bond between the base and the plate and bearing

1840011-7
M. Rashidi et al.

Fig. 9. Movement of bearings. (Photos courtesy of Steve Watson, RMS).

moving to the end of its allowance. Since damage to the bearings will a®ect other
structural members, proper maintenance is essential.8
It is observed that the bearings of the Kanahooka bridge have moved signi¯cantly
to the end of the bearing plate. Typically, the allowance for movement is su±cient to
allow for the average change in length due to temperature and typical loadings. As
the bridge movement has caused the bearings to be fully extended to the end of their
plates, any additional movement cannot be allowed for and damage to the bearing
plates and structure will result (see Fig. 9).
The above process (problem identi¯cation) provides a basis for the generation of
remedial and preventative actions that can be carried out if abutment movement is a
problem or potentially could be a problem. Shown in Fig. 10 is the °owchart for the
problems to the Kanahooka Road Bridge that have been accounted for during the
case study.

Fig. 10. Flowchart of the Kanahooka road overbridge problems and causes.

1840011-8
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

3. Remedial Options
3.1. Typical simplistic options
Typical simplistic engineering solutions come to mind when the analysis of the
problem of abutment movement is conducted. As the bridge abutment moves,
damage to localized parts of the structure takes place. From an engineering
perspective, the simplest remedial option comes from the local repairs conducted.
Although this would do nothing to actually prevent the movement, local repairs can
be used in the short term as a stopgap measure in order to buy time while discussion
of a permanent remedy is carried out.16 With the focus on an expansive soil pro¯le,
the removal of the approach section and replacement of the expansive soil with that
of a non-expansive material can be bene¯cial in terms of reducing the pressures
imposed by the soil pro¯le. Once the approach has been removed by means of ex-
cavation, the abutments are jacked back into position and the bearings reset. The
soil is then replaced by a typical non expansive ¯ll. The problems with this type of
approach come from deciding how much of the soil to remove, how far back and to
what depth. Because this option is one dimensional, it is a ‘hit and miss' alternative,
where the problem may or may not be solved. Increasing the design size of the
abutment will produce a larger resisting load within the structure. This can be an
option but the obvious problem that surrounds this approach is the over design of the
abutment and the e±cient use of space in the project.

3.2. Load reduction

Historically engineers have satis¯ed the stability problems of design and loads by
increasing the resistance of structures, achieved by increasing the size of the structure
or materials used.8,9 However, the concept of load reduction works particularly well
for earth-retaining structures. It has two main advantages; ¯rst it reduces the size of
the overall construction which can lower construction costs and second improves the
use of space in the design area. The Kanahooka Road Overbridge problems seem to
be attributed ¯rst and foremost to the lateral loading that has pushed the abutment
away from its intended position. The combination of a detrimental soil pro¯le and
makeup of the road pavement using slag as an aggregate has culminated in the
expansion of the surrounding soils, resulting in excess lateral load being placed on the
structure.11 Consequently, the western abutment has moved into the bridge decking.
This movement has resulted in the previously discussed problems. It seems obvious
that to remedy the problem, the primary course of action would be to reduce the
e®ect of the lateral earth pressures. There are two alternatives for reducing loads on
earth-retaining structures:

(1) Use of vertical drains to reduce pore water pressures.

(2) Use of a compressible inclusion to allow for a controlled displacement within a
normal soil back¯ll.

1840011-9
M. Rashidi et al.

3.2.1. Vertical drains

Design of structures on soft compressible soils has created various problems for
engineers. Construction without some sort of ground improvement can lead to
negative consequences due to the unpredictable long-term settlement of soil com-
ponents. Vertical drains are primarily used to increase the rate of settlement of the
foundation soil of a structure, but also are used to control high pressure gradients or
high pore water pressures.7
There are various systems for drainage including aggregate ¯lters and synthetic
¯lter materials, as well as pipes and other conduits. Drains must be capable of
removing all water that °ows through the system without allowing an excess build
up of head, they must also be designed in such a way as to avoid becoming clogged.
Spacing and patterns for drainage are now fairly standardized. The majority of sites
use a triangular or square pattern with spacings between 1 and 4 m, in order to
increase the drains area of in°uence. The depth to which drains are installed is
dependant on the thickness of the soil concerned. For depths up to 20 m vertical drains
provide an economic solution. However, beyond a depth of 20 m, construction costs
rise dramatically due to the added complications of installation.7
Vertical drains are generally constructed by inserting casing into the soil, placing
the drainage ¯ll in the hole, then removing the casing under air-pressure. Generally, a
drainage blanket of granular materials is placed over the area where the vertical
drains are installed. This is done to level out the distribution of settlement caused by
the placement of drains10 as seen in Fig. 11.
The consolidation of a soil is achieved through the removal of excess pore water,
from non-free draining soils such as clays. The introduction of vertical drains could
signi¯cantly reduce the excess of water pressures in the system surrounding the
Kanahooka Road Overbridge, and thus reducing the expansionary e®ect that water
has on the soil.

3.2.2. Compressible inclusion

A compressible inclusion is any relatively compressible material that can be placed
between a rigid structure and the ground that would otherwise be in direct contact.

Fig. 11. Typical vertical drain arrangements.

1840011-10
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

Fig. 12. Geofoam compressible inclusion.

The compressible inclusion acts as a sacri¯cial cushion, which allows the ground to
displace adjacent to the structure, in a situation where ground displacement would
otherwise be restricted or even prevented entirely due to the constraints imposed on
it by the structure. The advantage is a reduction in the surrounding earth pressures
acting on the structure, which can enhance the performance of an existing structure
or lead to a reduction in cost of a new structure.11
Geosynthetic materials are both durable and predictable in their behavior which
is their major advantage over using a lightweight ¯ll as a compressible inclusion to
reduce earth pressures. As such, a structure can incorporate a compressible inclusion
in their design very easily.
The use of geofoam in soils that are susceptible to volume change, due to envi-
ronmental conditions, or more commonly due to changes in water content are of
signi¯cant interest. Ordinarily, construction of earth retaining structures where soil
pro¯les of this nature are found is avoided as the earth pressures generated can be
extremely large. However, the use of a compressible inclusion can signi¯cantly lower
these pressures. In addition to reducing lateral loads, the compressible inclusion also
provides drainage,11 which makes it a very attractive option. A typical geofoam
compressible inclusion is depicted in Fig. 12.
When designing for extremely large loads of this type, the structure's size can be
extremely large. Economically, the use of a compressible inclusion can signi¯cantly
reduce the overall cost of the structure by reducing its design size. Considering that a
drainage layer can be incorporated within the design of a compressible inclusion, the
additional cost is relatively small and easily compensated by the technical and cost
bene¯ts that accrue from using it.

3.3. Anchorage system

In cases of extreme movement the use of rock anchors can provide a solution to
restrain the bridge abutments. Such a system has many advantages, such as anchors

1840011-11
M. Rashidi et al.

work simultaneously decrease deformations of retaining structures during excavation

and improve carrying capacity of the anchor wall system. However, it is di±cult to
predict the desired result of prestressing, and anchorage systems can be expensive.
Nevertheless anchors provide an e®ective option to increase the lateral resistance of a
structure.
Rock anchors are employed by drilling and driving a casing to the desired depth,
lowering a prepared steel cable and then injecting a grout under a nominal pressure
as the casing is withdrawn. The cables are then tensioned to the appropriate level to
resist the excessive lateral loads of the soil. Similar to post tensioning of concrete
beams, the cable strands can constitute any number of wires at a practical size that is
deemed necessary by the design engineer. In anchored earth, the resistance is pro-
vided by the soil development around an anchor at the end of the tensile member
which connects to the structure. The anchor orientation depends on the intended
loading of the cable. For small loads this can be a small wedge connected to the cable
or for larger loads, a block of cement imbedded in the soil. A typical grouted rock
anchor is shown in Fig. 13.
The ultimate load of an anchor corresponds to its structural failure, strength of
the bond of the grout, or the shearing of the anchor pulling through the soil. The
quality and condition of the soil, the size of the anchor and applied technology used
also contribute to the anchors ultimate load. The use of rock anchors was employed
in the remedial actions carried out in the replacement of Pontesei Bridge, Italy. As a
result of the unfavorable orientation of the bedding planes on the left bank of canyon,
the bridge abutments were subjected to sliding movements that had been observed
through the sites geological history. The right abutment, damaged heavily by the
movement, was reconstructed and horizontally restrained by means of a dense set of
multistrand rock anchors. Likewise, the left abutment was anchored so as to stabilize
the entire portion of the rock mass. All rock anchors were inclined below the hori-
zontal in order for them to be reliably grouted. The rock anchors were concentrated

Fig. 13. Grouted rock anchor.

1840011-12
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

towards the bottom of the abutment to improve the e®ectiveness of sliding resistance
(Movahedifar and Bolouri, 2012).
Post tensioning of concrete slabs usually requires that the excess strands are cut
and removed as this results in a more aesthetically pleasing ¯nish. However, in the
case of expansive soils and sliding slopes where movement is continuous over time, it
may be bene¯cial to leave a length of the post tension tendon free covered by a
removable shield. This could provide an e®ective remedial system if further move-
ment takes place as the abutment can be moved back into place using the existing
rock anchors.
Although rock anchors are an e®ective structural solution, installation can be
di±cult due to the size and number of strands needed. Additionally, because the
strands are skewed from horizontal, rotational forces on the abutment are created
which must be accounted for. Rock anchorage systems are also very expensive and
are often used as a last resort by designers.

3.4. Allowing for movement

Instead of accommodating for movements within the bridge, it may be a bene¯cial
option to allow for additional movement within the structural design. This can be
achieved by increasing the allowable movement and size of the expansion gaps and
bearings. However, by increasing the allowable movement several design con-
siderations must be accounted for. For instance the most important prerequisite
arises from the basic function of the expansion joint, which is to allow for movement
sustained without causing a break in the continuity of the riding surface of the
roadway. The problem arises that an increase in the size of the expansion gap will
invariably have a larger area to cover in order to provide a smooth riding surface. A
typical gap is around 30 mm; if this is increased, the additional space will allow for
that extra movement sustained by bridge movements, but also becomes very no-
ticeable to motorists traveling over the gap. The use of neoprene seals and com-
pression joints can compensate for this and will smooth the riding surface, but as the
design gap becomes larger, the e®ectiveness of the seals and compression joints
diminish. The other problem imposed by increasing the expansion gap size is that the
vertical movement of the bridge caused by the imposed self-weight and tra±c loads
become more apparent. A possible solution is to put expansion gap plates into use
(see Fig. 14). These are placed over the gap and can accommodate larger spacing
between slabs and can provide allowance for the vertical movement sustained.
However, expansion plates do not provide the same smooth riding surface that a
normal size gap would o®er and are very apparent to motorists, not to mention
detrimental to aesthetics of the bridge.8,9
In terms of bridge bearings, greater allowances for movement can be sustained
without much unfavorable e®ect. Allowance for additional movement can be
achieved in two ways in regards to the bearings. First, by increasing the design size of
the bearings used or, second, by incorporating an alternate type of bearing. By

1840011-13
M. Rashidi et al.

Fig. 14. Expansion gap plate.

increasing the size of the bearing, additional lateral movement can be accommodated
at the cost of over design. This a®ects the structure by increasing the costs and also
increasing the areas taken up by the bearings plates. The most e®ective bearings for
accommodating lateral movements are roller and pot bearings. Roller bearings can
accommodate the greatest quantity of movement but only account for the movement
in one plane, whereas pot bearings can account for a range of movements within a
smaller ¯eld. In terms of lateral pressures caused by the soil pro¯le, it may be
bene¯cial to accommodate roller bearings in the design as the ‘¯xed bearing' and to
increase the size of the pot bearings used.10

4. Remedial Planning
4.1. Feasible options
The remedial treatment of a bridge structure must ¯rst be analyzed by the inves-
tigation of the problems at hand. Through the case study of the Kanahooka Road
Overbridge, these problems have been identi¯ed and potential solutions are gener-
ated. Combining the broad base of knowledge, the system for the remedial works of
bridge abutment movement has been created. This system identi¯es the local pro-
blems that have taken place at the Kanahooka Road Overbridge, and shows the
various actions that may be taken for the remedial treatment of the speci¯c problem.
Shown in Fig. 15 is the remedial °owchart for bridge abutment movement, based
on the ¯ndings from the Kanahooka Road Overbridge investigation.
From the investigation, the problems were uncovered and attributed to di®erent
causes. As can be seen from the °owchart, the problems sustained have been cu-
mulative, where the soil pro¯le has caused movement of the abutment which in turn
causes problems with the various components within the bridge structure. Problems

1840011-14
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

Fig. 15. Problems, causes and remedial options for bridge abutment movement.

such as the abutment movement and the surface damage to the road surface have
been attributed to the soil expanding resulting in excess lateral pressures on the
bridge abutment. As such the solutions formed have focused on treatment of the soil
in order to reduce these pressures. Removal of the expansive ¯ll, use of vertical
drainage and use of compressible inclusions are all options that have the potential to
solve the problem, or at the very least will reduce the e®ect of the lateral pressures.
Movement of the abutment has caused problems in two components of the bridge:
the expansion joints and bearings and the bridge structure itself. The expansion
joints and bearing problems can be treated in two ways; by allowing for the extra
movement to be accommodated by the structure or by combining the use of in-
creased gaps and larger bearings, or by increasing the load resistance of the structure
to reduce these movements either by increasing the size of the structure or by in-
corporating an anchorage system. Structural damage to the bridge structure in-
cluding surface damage, damage to the bridge bearings and damage to the abutment
wingwall, would be treated as required according to the damage sustained.

4.2. Decision analysis

Numeric scoring models such as Weighted Constraint Matrix have been developed to
allow multiple constraints to be used for concept feasibility studies. These models can
combine economic evaluation output with technical and subjective constraint to
create a decision making environment that is more holistic (and realistic) in nature.12
A Weighted Constraint Model is de¯ned by a set of variables, their associated
domains of values and a set of binary constraints governing the assignment of

1840011-15
M. Rashidi et al.

Table 2. Rating of remedial actions for bridge abutment movement.

Rating

Environmental Preservation of Aesthetic Un-interrupted

Remedial action Safety considerations (EC) invested capital design Costs tra±c °ow

Removal of expansive 3 2 3 3 2 1
soils and replacement
with new ¯ll
Increase in Expansion 3 2 3 2 3 2
gaps and Bearing sizes
Vertical drains 3 2 3 3 3 3
Compressible inclusion 3 2 2 2 2 2
Increase in abutment size 3 2 1 3 1 1
Anchorage system 3 1 2 3 1 2

variables to values. Each constraint is associated with a positive integer weighting.

The output is an assignment which maximizes the weighted sum of satis¯ed
constraints.
The main priorities for maintenance work of any kind on bridges include safety,
the preservation of invested capital and availability of an uninterrupted tra±c °ow.
These are closely followed by environmental considerations and aesthetic design.13
These considerations should weigh in heavily when assessing the most appropriate
remedial actions. Shown in Table 2 are ratings to the di®erent actions discussed
earlier. The ratings 3, 2 and 1 indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the particular
action. A rating of 3 is a favorable indication of actions particular strength, whereas a
rating of 1 is an unfavorable rating to the particular consideration.
The choice phase involves the evaluation of the alternatives against the objec-
tives, making a tentative choice, assessing its potential adverse consequences, and
making a ¯nal selection.14
For speci¯c projects, clients selecting appropriate remedial action for maintenance
works can take into account what considerations are most important to the
project by using this rating system and assigning a ranking of what consideration
weighs in most heavily. By using another 3, 2, 1 ranking and by multiplying the
values assigned by the client to the rating given to each remedial action, the client
can see through a numerical value what actions would serve their purposes most
e®ectively. Shown in Table 3 is an example of how a client may utilize the rating
system when applying the Remedial System for Bridge Abutment Movement.
Through the use of this rating system a client can make decisions quickly and easily
as to what remedial actions would best achieve the results desired in their individual
project.
For this particular project the client has indicated high priorities to safety and
aesthetic design. While low rankings were given to environmental considerations and
interrupting the tra±c °ow. It can be easily observed that the action that was most
favorable to the client's speci¯cations has been the use of compressible inclusion,
through the higher total given by the ranking system.

1840011-16
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

Table 3. Rating of remedial actions for bridge abutment movement with client ranking.

Rating
Preservation of Aesthetic Uninterrupted
Remedial action Safety E.C. invested capital design Costs tra±c °ow Total
Removal of expansive soils and 33 21 32 33 22 11 31
replacement with new ¯ll
Increase expansion gaps and 33 21 32 23 32 21 31
bearing sizes
Vertical drains 32 21 32 31 32 31 26
Compressible inclusion 33 22 23 23 22 22 33
Increase in abutment size 33 21 12 33 12 11 25
Anchorage system 33 11 22 33 12 21 27

The client resolved the problem by removing the sections of back wall in the tra±c
lanes and reconstructing them allowing for future movements. The area of approach
embankment that was removed were re-instated using foam ¯ll (compressible inclusion).

5. Preventative Treatment Options

In a situation where an engineer believes that an abutment may be subject to
movement it is possible to put in place measures to remedy these problems before
they occur. The problem of abutment movement is usually not structural in nature,
but rather geotechnical and as such, focus on ground improvement can go a long way
towards prevention. In clay soils, vertical drains can remove the excess water that
has caused the damage su®ered in the Kanahooka Road Overbridge. Incorporating
this into the design and construction phase would serve as a bene¯t in the long term.
It could be argued that increasing the size of the abutment and headstock would
increase the lateral load capacity and also increase the strength of the headstock.
This type of action, although it may solve the problem, creates its own in terms of
over-design, and will increase the cost of the bridge.1
Greater allowances for the bearings and expansion gaps used will allow for more
movement to be sustained without signi¯cantly increasing the cost during design and
construction. This proves to be a far more economic option when weighed against the
cost of remedial actions to repair problems of this nature.4
Preventive works begin with an investigation into the surrounding soils and an
assessment of whether there is a risk of movement to the structure. Review of local
soil pro¯les in the area would be essential to the assessment. Once risk of movement
is established, the method of treatment is then chosen. Because the problem has been
identi¯ed before damage has taken place in the structure, preventative treatment can
be performed in stages. Depending on the degree of potential damage, options can be
performed and then added to as required. After an initial assessment of risk, the ¯rst
action is to decide on how to treat the problem; whether to restrain or to allow for the
movement su®ered. In allowing for the movement and increasing the expansion gap
and bearing sizes, the engineer must assess how much movement will be sustained
over time and if it will continue.2 If the movement stops at a point, the problem is

1840011-17
M. Rashidi et al.

solved, however, if the movement is continuous the problem may be avoided for a
period of time, although potentially not solved as treatment has not occurred where
the problem exists, and maintenance will be an ongoing issue.
If movement within the system is to be restrained, then the use of load reducing
options can be implemented. Removal of expansive soils in the system has the po-
tential to solve the problem, although as a method of treatment has no ‘insurance' if
the problem continues despite action. Installation of vertical drains and compressible
inclusions are economical options that do treat the problem at hand by reducing the
lateral loads that the structure is subjected to Ref. 7. As a preventative measure for
abutment movement, these types of options can be factored into the design of a
structure and can in e®ect, reduce the overall size of the bridge abutment leading to
reduced costs for the construction company.
This stage is followed by further assessment of whether the bridge may be sub-
jected to additional movement. If it is deemed that the measurements put in place
are insu±cient the ¯rst stage is to explore the other side of the °owchart and assess
the other options as additional treatment to the actions already utilized. The com-
bination of actions will be bene¯cial while still maintaining a cost e®ective approach
to remedy the abutment movement.
Once again, if assessment of the e®ectiveness of measures put in place indicates
that actions may not be adequate, the introduction of an anchor system or the
redesign of the abutment structure may be necessary.3 These types of options will be
more e®ective at achieving the desired results than the options previously stated,
although at a substantially increased cost to the construction company. Rock
anchors have proven, as shown by the Pontesei Bridge in Italy, that they are an
e®ective measure in terms of restraining movement sustained in one plane by the
bridge abutment. They can be adapted to suit the size of the bridge abutment as
desired by the engineer. They can also be used in the maintenance of remedial actions
if the abutment should move in the future. Increasing the design size of the abutment
will indeed increase the resisting load, but leads to problems of overdesign and this
must be taken into account in the design stage.

6. Conclusion
This paper analyzes the design and behavior of bridge abutments and bridge decks
when subjected to lateral movement. Theoretical analysis states that the bridge
abutment itself should be adequate to withstand the lateral pressures imposed,
however, investigation into the Kanahooka Road Overbridge and the Springhill
Road Bridge showed that this does not always hold true. Abutment movement has
the potential to cause substantial damage to the bridge structure, resulting in high
costs of repair and maintenance. The research undertaken has led to the conclusion
that abutment movement is a problem of largely unknown quantity and despite
investigation, movements may still occur unanticipated. However, these movements
can be addressed and recti¯ed through the use of speci¯c actions.

1840011-18
 Bridge Abutment Movement and Approach Settlement

The results of the case study highlighted that the problems identi¯ed in sur-
rounding soils, road approaches, bridge abutment, and expansion and bearing joints
are interconnected. As the soil pro¯le expands, excess loads are placed on the bridge
abutment and road approaches. This in turn causes the movement of the abutment
into the bridge deck which creates the structural problems seen in the expansion and
bearing joints and also the structural cracking of the concrete in the wingwall of the
abutment. These problems, while not immediately critical, will continue to worsen if
left untreated as the abutment continues to move, thereby placing increasing
amounts of load on the structure.
The Kanahooka Road Overbridge investigation found that the structure itself
should have been adequate to withstand the lateral pressures imposed by the tra±c
and soils. However, at the time of construction the expansive properties of the steel
furnace slag used in the road aggregate were greatly underestimated. Consequently
investigation into the soil pro¯les surrounding bridges should be given a high pri-
ority, and soil treatments and ground improvement technologies should be used
during design of bridge abutments. Although the structural design of a bridge does
not in itself cause abutment movement, the damage to the structure can be com-
pounded if the bridge is designed with a high amount of skew in the bridge deck.
Instead of movement in one plane the skew angle causes a rotation of the structure.
This rotation causes further damage and adds to the cost of repair. As such, bridges
should be designed with a small, or preferably no angle of skew to the bridge deck, in
order to eliminate the possibility of additional damage in a second plane.
Remedial and preventative actions for treatment were discussed and each of the
various actions were reviewed and assessed for individual advantages and dis-
advantages and developed into the remedial and preventative °owchart systems
(Fig. 15). The use of any of these actions will reduce the magnitude of abutment
movement and the detrimental damage to the bridge structure. Each of the various
options has particular strengths and weaknesses, which can be improved when used as
combination of actions. Soil improvements should be used as a priority as they are cost
e®ective as well as providing an e®ective solution. The option of making allowances for
movement does not provide an e®ective solution because the underlying problem is not
addressed. However, such actions can reduce the detrimental e®ects of damage to the
structure and can be used as insurance if soil improvements fail in some respect or to
‘buy time' while more intensive treatments are reviewed. The use of an anchorage
system provides an e®ective solution to the problem and can be incorporated to include
extended post tension cables for the purposes of remedial treatment in the future. This
could be extremely advantageous if movement continues to occur. However, such
systems are expensive which must weigh in heavily when considering design options.

References
1. W. Hong and K. Lee, Evaluation of lateral movement of piled bridge abutment undergoing
lateral soil movement in soft ground, Mar. Georesour. Geotech. 27(3) (2009) 177–189.

1840011-19
M. Rashidi et al.

2. C. Lin, J. Han, C. Bennett and R. Parsons, Case history analysis of bridge failures due to
scour, Climatic E®ects on Pavement and Geotechnical Infrastructure 1 (2014) 204–216.
3. M. Rashidi, S. Kempton and B. Samali, Analysis of bridge abutment movement through a
case study, Mechanics of Structures and Materials 1 (2017) 85–90.
4. M. Movahedifar and J. Bolouri, An investigation on the e®ect of cyclic displacement on
the integral bridge abutment, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 20(2) (2012)
256–269.
5. J. Briaud, R. James and S. Ho®man, Settlement of Bridge Approaches (Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, 1997).
6. T. Hopkins, Settlement of Highway Bridge Approaches and Embankment Approaches
(Kentucky Transportation Centre, Lexington-Kentucky, 1973).
7. B. Azari, B. Fatahi and H. Khabbaz, Numerical analysis of vertical drains accelerated
consolidation considering combined soil disturbance and visco-plastic behaviour, Int. J.
Geotech. Eng. 8(2) (2015) 187–220.
8. M. Rashidi, B. Samali and P. Shara¯, A new model for bridge management: Part A:
Condition assessment and priority ranking of bridges, Australian Journal of Civil Engi-
neering 14 (2015a) 35–45.
9. M. Rashidi, B. Samali and P. Shara¯, A new model for bridge management: Part B:
Decision support system for remediation planning, Australian Journal of Civil Engi-
neering 14 (2015b) 46–53.
10. T. Tran and T. Mitachi, Equivalent plane strain modeling of vertical drains in soft ground
under embankment combined with vacuum preloading, Comput. Geotech. 35(5) (2008)
655–672.
11. J. Horvath, Geofoam compressible Inclusions: The new frontier in earth retaining
structures, ASCE (2004) 1925–1934.
12. M. Rashidi and B. Lemass, A decision support methodology for remediation planning of
concrete bridges, Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 1(2)
(2011) 1–10.
13. E. Watanbe, D. Frangopol and T. Utsunomiya, Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Manage-
ment and Cost (Bulkema Publishers, Leiden, 2004).
14. M. Rashidi and P. Gibson, A methodology for bridge condition evaluation, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Architecture 6(9) (2012) 1149–1157.
15. W. Chen and L. Duan, Bridge Engineering, Construction and Maintenance. S.l. (CRC
Press Book, 2003).
16. M. Rashidi, B. Lemass and P. Gibson, A decision support system for concrete bridge
maintenance, USA, American Institute of Physics AIP, (2010), pp. 1372–1377.

1840011-20

View publication stats