Integral Bridge Design - Derivation of the Spring

Constant for Modelling the Soil-Structure Interaction

Sergei Terzaghi BE(Hons), MIPENZ
Gillian Sisk BEng PhD MIEI CEng

Synopsis

Integral bridges present a challenge for load distribution calculations because the
bridge deck, piers, abutments, embankments and soil must all be considered as a
single compliant system. The thermal deck movements are accommodated by soil
structure interaction between the supporting piles and the surrounding strata. Deck
loading is also affected by the soil which acts as both load and support system to the
piles upon which the structures are founded.

Specifying a series of spring supports behind the abutments and adjacent to the
foundation piles to approximate soil behaviour is a commonly used modelling
method. The main difficulty with the Winkler spring type model is the derivation of an
appropriate spring constant. A common practice is to use the subgrade stiffness for
the soil type.

In this paper, factors that influence the magnitude of spring stiffness are investigated,
such as the overall range of movement expected, the soil type or select fill
parameters (modulus and Poisson ratio), and the area of the structure resisting the
movement. Relationships between the spring constant and each of these
parameters are then determined and are used to derive the spring constant
appropriate for the ground conditions and loading combinations.

Introduction

An integral bridge may be defined as having no expansion joints or sliding bearings,

the deck is continuous across the length of the bridge. Integral bridges are
alternatively referred to as integral abutment bridges, jointless bridges and rigid
frame bridge. Semi-integral bridges typically have sliding bearings but no expansion
joints.

An important aspect of integral bridge design is the modelling of the pile-soil

interaction. For conventional abutments with raked piles, the longitudinal movement
of the abutment is relatively small and therefore the interaction between the piles and
the soil does not have a significant influence of the design of the piles. For
abutments with vertical piles and particularly those with only a single row, shortening
of the superstructure due to creep and shrinkage and movements arising from
traction forces, induce bending moments which are directly related to the combined
stiffness of the pile and the surrounding soil. In order to calculate bending moments
in the piles, the stiffness of the soil must be included.

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 1

This paper focuses on the determination of the soil stiffness and considers the
factors that influence this value.

Various Methods to Determine Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Table 1 below summarises a number of commonly used methods used to determine

the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction. These are used to compare to the
approach adopted in this paper.

Methods/References: Equation
Based on constants of for ‘wall’ analysis, khj = mhzj/d
horizontal subgrade reaction,
mh or nh for ‘pile’ analysis, khj = nhzj/B
(Geoguide 1, 1993)
where:
0.64K pγ
mh = for loose sand
( y' / d ) + 0.017

1.09K pγ
= for dense sand
( y' / d ) + 0.011

where:
y’ = lateral deflection of wall at mid-depth
embedment in soil
Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure
d = depth of wall embedment in soil
γ = soil unit weight

nh = 0.19 Dr1.16
where:
Dr = relative density – refer to Schmertmann
(1978)

Based on Es’ khj = 0.8 to 1.8 Esj’

(Geoguide 1, 1993)

Based on Vesic
 0.65 Es d  Es 
4
(Poulos, 1980) khj =  12
 d  Ep I p  1−υs 
2

Based on Skempton – for khj = (80 to 320) cu/d ; where: cu = undrained shear
cohesive soil only strength; d = pile diameter
(Poulos, 1980)

Table 1

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 2

Research

In order to assess the influence of the different factors, and validate a given
analytical approach, a 3-d finite element model was set up using the program Plaxis,
and the results used to calculate the equivalent spring stiffness. Three different soil
models were used to also examine the influence of the way the soil was modeled on
the results.

The three soil models used were the Linear Elastic Model, the Mohr Coulomb Model,
and the Hardening Soil Model. The essential characteristics of these models are:

Linear Elastic model is a classic elastic model governed by an E value and

poisson’s ratio. This model requires only two stiffness/strength parameters

The Mohr Coulomb Model is a linear elastic- perfectly plastic model, that is, it
behaves in a linear elastic fashion up to the point of failure, and thereafter,
behaves in perfectly plastic fashion, with non- recoverable deformation. This
model requires 5 stiffness/strength parameters

The hardening soil model is a non-linear elasto-plastic soil model incorporating

strain dependent hardening (change in stiffness), development of plasticity,
pressure dependent stiffness, and memory of previous soil history. As such, it is
able to better capture elements of real soil behaviour. It requires 7
stiffness/strength key parameters with 5 secondary parameters. Whilst this
sound more complex, in fact, it is often easier to capture the 7 key parameters
with routine testing than it is to guesstimate the 5 required in the Mohr Coulomb
model.

As most analytic representations are based around Linear Elastic solutions, it is quite
important to include in any analysis the Linear Elastic Model as a basis for
comparison, similarly with the Mohr coulomb model as most people are familiar with
its characteristics. The Hardening soil model was selected as it (properly calibrated)
more closely represents the real soil behavior

In selecting a spring stiffness for modeling soil behavior, one needs to consider the
original definition of the modulus of subgrade reaction, from which the soil spring is
typically derived, the loaded area, and the zone of influence of the loaded area, as
well as such apparently secondary factors like total strain induced, strain rate,
confining pressure, and cyclic loading (from both high (vibrations) and low frequency
(eg thermal)). It is often difficult to capture all of these effects in a single spring
value, or even in a sensitivity check.

In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the selected spring constant to these factors a
series of runs were carried out using the three model types above, with parameters
selected to simulate the target soil, such that one could better select an appropriate
spring constant for a given situation. A selection of the findings is given in the
graphs below.

A number of findings are evident straight away, with significantly different results by
using the different soil models. This should not be a surprise, as each model

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 3

incorporates a different amount of plasticity and different response to strain. Also,
there is more sensitivity to the loaded area than is commonly recognized. This again
is function of the differing levels of strain as the loaded area becomes larger. The
sensitivity of the chosen spring stiffness is surprisingly sensitive to the poisson’s
ratio, something not reflected elsewhere.

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 4

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 5
Case Study - Pacific Highway Karuah to Bulahdelah Sections 2 and 3 Upgrade

The use of integral construction was adopted for all the bridge structures on the
Karuah to Bulahdelah Upgrade. This form of construction allowed the gland type
expansion joints to be replaced by small movement deck joints, it allowed
simplification of the elastomeric bearings by eliminating shear capacity requirements
and it eliminated forward raking piles. The elimination of the gland type expansion
joints at the abutments also results in a long term maintenance advantage.

Figure 1 Typical Abutment Detail

The bridges are single span structures supporting the carriageway varying in span
from 18m to 33m. The superstructures comprise prestressed concrete T beams with
a compositely acting reinforced concrete deck slab. The beams are supported on
laminated elastomeric bearings which accommodated the rotation due to live loads.
A small movement joint as per the standard RTA detail is located at each abutment.

The spill-through abutments consist of reinforced concrete headstocks supported on

400mm square precast reinforced concrete driven piles. Stainless steel dowels
resist the design longitudinal loads in shear (refer to Figure 1 for typical abutment
detail)

The site is generally underlain by alluvial clays of firm to stiff consistency over
siltstone/sandstone bedrock

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 6

The approach to structural design of the bridges was considered with reference to
BA 42/96, and requirements of the Project Scope of Work and Technical Criteria
(SWTC), and specifically AS 5100.

The Advice Note BA 42/96 is a British Technical Advice Note developed to give
design requirements for integral abutments. It was written specifically to provide
guidance on horizontal earth pressures, and soil-structure interaction and is based
largely on research carried out by Springman et al (1996). At the time of the design,
the RTA Bridge Policy Circular BPC 2007/05 had not been issued. This circular
makes reference to the Advice Note BA42/96. It stipulates design requirements and
limitations to the design of integral bridges in NSW which is keeping with current
practice in Europe and the USA.

Based on these references, the following methodology was used.

The superstructure design was modelled as a grillage using either ACES to obtain
design actions and deflections in the T beams and deck due to live load and
superimposed dead loads such as parapets.

The abutment, pile group and soil interaction was then modelled as a 2-dimensional
frame in MicroStran incorporating the superstructure.

Horizontal springs were incorporated at the interface of the piles and the existing
material and between the abutments and the select fill. The spring stiffness values
adopted were evaluated using the modulus of subgrade reaction as described in this
paper. The modulus of subgrade reaction for the soil took into consideration the
height of the abutment or pile diameter as appropriate, the overall range of bridge
movement, the soil type or select fill and elastic modulus. Upper and lower bounds
were provided and used as appropriate for each combination load case to determine
the worst effect. The soil spring reactions were checked to ensure the soil was within
its limiting stress.

The load cases comprising permanent effects, temperature expansion or contraction

and live load effects were applied to the integral bridge frame. The two critical ULS
load cases were as follows:

Dead, superimposed dead, creep, shrinkage, temperature contraction and SLS

live and longitudinal braking all acting simultaneously. Active earth pressure was
applied to the abutment moving in the direction of the longitudinal braking force
and horizontal springs applied to the back of the abutment wall resisting this
movement.

Dead, superimposed dead, temperature expansion and SLS live and longitudinal
braking all acting simultaneously. To determine the effects of the longitudinal
braking, horizontal springs were applied to the abutment resisting the movement
due to the longitudinal braking force and active earth pressure applied to the
back of the other abutment wall. To determine the effects of the thermal
expansion, horizontal springs were applied to both abutments. The stiffness of
the springs were adjusted accordingly to ensure that the K* earth pressure was

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 7

 not exceeded (refer to BA 42/96 – earth pressure corresponding to the retained
height and thermal displacement).

Discussion

For abutments with a single row of vertical piles, shortening of the superstructure
due to creep and shrinkage and movements arising from earthquake and braking
forces, induce bending moments which are directly related to the combined stiffness
of the piles and the surrounding soil. In order to calculate bending moments in the
piles, the stiffness of the soil must be included in the modeling of the structure. As
an example on the Karuah to Bulahdelah bridges, increasing the spring stiffness by
100% resulted in an increase of approximately 30% in the bending moment in the
piles.

It is important to note that the modulus of subgrade reaction and the stiffness of a
soil are not soil properties and for a given soil type will vary depending on the loaded
area and the magnitude and rate of loading along with the stress history of the soil
and also current confining pressure. As a consequence, it is important the selected
distribution of spring values reflect that, and in fact may need to change depending
on the load case. The likely range of spring values is also somewhat dependent on
soil type, and in any event should not be relied upon in soft soils, as the concept of
spring stiffness relies on the soil remaining within the elastic (0.01% strain) or
pseudo-elastic range (0.1% strain) of soil behavior.

Below Table 2 tabulates values of spring stiffness calculated using three different
methods. This table would suggest that current practice could lead the piles being
under or over designed, especially for the smaller piles and where the pile loads are
as a result of prescribed displacements.

Based on
Based on Es’ Vesic Based on
(Geoguide 1, (Poulos, Terzaghi
Item B Material ν E (kPa) 1993) 1980) (2007)
ks (kPa/m) ks (kPa/m) ks (kPa/m)
M-C Model

Abutment 1.9 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 15,470 30,153

Abutment 1.45 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 20,270 37,198

Pile 0.4 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 73,480 101,156

Pile 0.4 alluvium 0.3 10,000 8,000 18,000 11,128 16,859
Pile 0.4 Clay 0.3 20,000 16,000 36,000 23,578 33,719

Pile 0.6 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 51,195 73,825

Pile 0.6 alluvium 0.3 10,000 8,000 18,000 7,753 12,304
Pile 0.6 Clay 0.3 20,000 16,000 36,000 16,428 24,608

Pile 0.9 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 34,130 53,879

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 8

 Based on
Based on Es’ Vesic Based on
(Geoguide 1, (Poulos, Terzaghi
Item B Material ν E (kPa) 1993) 1980) (2007)
Pile 0.9 alluvium 0.3 10,000 8,000 18,000 5,169 8,980
Pile 0.9 Clay 0.3 20,000 16,000 36,000 10,952 17,960

Pile 1.2 Fill 0.2 60,000 48,000 108,000 25,600 43,089

Pile 1.2 alluvium 0.3 10,000 8,000 18,000 3,877 7,181
Pile 1.2 Clay 0.3 20,000 16,000 36,000 8,214 14,363

Table 2

Variation in values from different methods highlights the risk of under or over-
designing piles. Conventional use of springs is discouraged and the use of
combined structural geotechnical models is encouraged.

References

“Guide to Retaining Wall Design – Geoguide 1” by Geotechnical Engineering Office,

Civil Engineering Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, 1993.

H.G. Poulos and E.H. Davis, 1980, “ Pile Foundation Analysis and Design”

Springman S M, A R M Norrish and C W W Ng (1996), “Cyclic Loading of Sand

Integral Bridge Abutments” TRL Project Report 146. Crawthorne: Transport
Research Laboratory

Integral Bridge Design – Terzaghi/Sisk 9