2/2/2019

Types of Abutments, General Design Requirements of

Highway Bridge Abutments in Accordance with
Volume 5 DGCS 2015

Presented by:
Francis G. Domingo, M.Sc.Eng.
Associate/Sr. Bridge Engineer
DCCD Engineering Corporation

Deputy Design Manager

Cebu-Cordova Link Expressway
COWI/DCCD

DCCD ENGINEERING CORPORATION

• DCCD was formed in 1957 in the Philippines as an all-Filipino consulting firm, the first of its kind in the country to address the demand for a
comprehensive package of engineering services
• 1st engineering consulting firm in the Philippines that has been awarded
- ISO 9001 (Quality System)
- ISO 14001:2004 (Environmental Management System)
- OHSAS 18001:2007 (Occupational Health and Safety Management System)

1
 2/2/2019

DCCD ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Tran Thi Ly Cable Stayed Bridge Diosdado Macapagal Bridge

Da Nang, Vietnam Butuan CIty

Marcelo Fernan Bridge

Cebu City

Cebu Cordova Link Expressway

Cebu City – Municipality of Cordova

DESIGN REFERENCE CODE

MAIN REFERENCES SECONDARY REFERENCES

2
 2/2/2019

ABUTMENT FAILURES

3
 2/2/2019

OTHER TYPES OF ABUTMENT

LOADS ACTING ON ABUTMENT

• Prevent the superstructure from

falling/unseating

• Retain embankment and resist lateral earth

pressure

• Resist horizontal loads from structure

(temperature, braking, seismic forces, wind, etc)

• Resist and transmit vertical loads to the

foundation

Primary function of abutment

4
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

LOADS (16.2.2)

• Temperature and shrinkage deformation

not considered
• Braking Force not considered
• Combination effect of truck load and live
load not considered
• Stability check (service load design)

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

• All dead loads are treated the same, with

the same load factors
• No minimum and maximum values

• Dead Load is divided into 2 with different load factor:

DC – Component and attachments
DW – Wearing surface and utilities
• Considers maximum and minimum load factor values

Vertical Earth Pressure (EV)

Weight of the soil retained by the abutment (above the footing)

5
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

Considers maximum and minimum load factor values

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

6
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

• Live load surcharge considered is 600mm

regardless of Abutment height

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

7
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

4.07 kPa
2.87 kPa

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

• Both not considered

8
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

How the water table/water level affects the abutment:

• It induces an upward uplift force at the bottom of the toe which tends to push the abutment to
overturn
• It reduces the bearing capacity of the foundation if groundwater is within the of the 1.5 Length of
footing plus the overburden height ( 1.5B +Df )

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

References:
• DPWH Bridge Seismic Design Specifications, 2015 (BSDS)
• AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design

9
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

DPWH DGCS
AASHTO Standard/AASHTO LRFD

10
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

(AASHTO Standard 2002)
LIMIT STATES
TWO METHODS
1.0 Service Limit State (16.1.1)
• SERVICE LOAD DESIGN METHOD
- Excessive vertical and lateral displacement ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
- Overall stability using limit equilibrium analysis
- Stability (overturning, sliding, foundation
2.0 Strength Limit State (16.1.2) pressure) using a minimum factor of safety
- Bearing resistance failure
• STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD
- Lateral sliding
LOAD FACTOR DESIGN
- Loss of base contact due to eccentric loading
-Structural failure Serviceability Limit State
- Settlement
3.0 Extreme Limit State (16.1.3) - Lateral displacement
- Overall Stability
Strength Limit State
- Bearing resistance failure
- Bearing resistance failure
- Lateral sliding - Excessive loss of contact
- Loss of base contact due to eccentric loading - Sliding at base of footing
-Structural failure - Loss of overall stability
- Structural capacity

Common practice is to use ASD in stability analysis and LFD in the

structural design

Design Life: 75 years Design Life: 50 years

11
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

(AASHTO Standard 2002)

Considers
• Redundancy
• Ductility
• importance

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

Resistance Factors

1. Service Limit State 1.0 (except overall stability) • SERVICE LOAD DESIGN METHOD
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
2. Strength Limit State
Factors of Safety*
Sliding 1.5
Overturning 2.0 (soil)
* 1.5 (Rock)
Bearing capacity 1.5

*For seismic the Factors of Safety may be

reduced to 75% of the factors of safety listed
above

• STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD

LOAD FACTOR DESIGN

Service Limit State

Strength Limit State

f – strength reduction factor

g – Load factor
*Resistance factor depends on the method of analysis used and also the structure
configuration
3. Extreme Limit State 0.9 (overall stability)
0.8 (bearing resistance – gravity wall)
0.9 (bearing resistance - semi-gravity)

12
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

STRENGTH AND EXTREME LIMIT STATE

• Bearing resistance failure
• Lateral sliding
• Loss of base contact due to eccentric
loading

Therefore, you need to consider different

load factors including minimum and
maximum values for each check

SERVICE LIMIT STATE

• Settlement analysis (15.3.2.3)

• Overall stability using limit equilibrium analysis (15.3.2.4)
• Settlement of Pile groups (15.4.2.2) and drilled shaft (15.5.2.2)
• Horizontal Pile Movement (15.4.2.3) and shaft/shaft group movement (15.5.2.3)
• Settlement due to down drag for pile group (15.4.2.4) and shaft (15.5.2.4)

(Due to limited time, these sections will not be part of this presentation.)

13
 2/2/2019

STRENGTH AND EXTREME LIMIT STATE

• Bearing resistance failure

• Lateral sliding
• Loss of base contact due to eccentric loading
• Structural failure

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

BEARING STRESS (16.2.4.1)

b. Where the wall is supported by rock foundation

If resultant is within the middle third of the base (e < L foot/6)
sv = SV ( 1 +/- 6e/L foot)
B
a. Where the wall is supported by a soil foundation
If resultant is outside the middle third of the base (e < L foot/6)
sv = SV
svmax = 2 SV
B-2e
3 (B/2 - e)

14
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

NOMINAL BEARING RESISTANCE (15.3.3.1) Allowable Stress Design

The nominal bearing resistance of soil layer shall be taken as:

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

LATERAL SLIDING (15.3.4) Allowable Stress Design

15
 2/2/2019

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

Allowable Stress Design
ECCENTRICITY LIMITS

• Strength Limit State (16.2.4.2)

e < 0.133B (foundation on soil) – R should be at middle 2/3
e < 0.45B (foundation on rock) – R should be at middle 9/10

• Extreme Limit State (16.2.6)

For both soils and rock*
e < 0.133B for gEQ = 0.0 – R should be at middle 2/3
e < 0.400B for gEQ = 1.0 – R should be at middle 8/10

*Linear interpolation of values is allowed for values

of gEQ between 0.00 and 1.0

DGCS 2015 (AASHTO LRFD 2012)

STRUCTURAL FAILURE
16.2.2

16.2.3

16.2.5

16
 2/2/2019

STRENGTH LIMIT STATE

Case 1:
Construction Stage: Abutment
built and backfilled to grade
Case 2:
Construction Stage: Abutment
built and backfilled to grade
Case 3: Case 4:
Bridge open to traffic with traffic loading
Truck load at the bridge with
on the approach only (due to approach surcharge live load at the approach
slab, traffic load is considered as LS (both
vertical and lateral load)

LSv=1.75 DC=1.25
DC=1.25 DC=0.90 LSv=1.75 DW = 1.5
DW= 1.5 DW= 0.65 LL=1.75
PL = 1.75
BR=1.75
LSh=1.75
LSh=1.75
EV=1.00 EV=1.00 EV=1.00
DC=1.25 DC=0.90 EV=1.35
DC=0.90 DC=1.25
EH=1.50 EH=1.5
EH=1.50
EH=1.5

STRENGTH 1-1 STRENGTH 1-2 STRENGTH 1-4 STRENGTH 1-5

Critical for sliding failure Check for eccentricity, as load Critical for sliding failure Critical for bearing failure
(construction) due to from the superstructure induce especially for high abutments due to high vertical loads
minimum sliding additional eccentricity
resistance (Fv tand)

Extreme Event I
DC=0.90 DC=0.90 DC=0.90
DW = 0.65 DW = 0.65 DW = 0.65
PIR = 1.0
PIR = 0.5 PIR = 0.5
Critical for sliding failure
(construction) due to PIR=0.5 PIR=1.0 PIR=0.5
minimum sliding DC=0.90 DC=0.90 DC=0.9
resistance (Fv tand) and EV=1.00 EV=1.00
EV=1.00 PAE = 0.5
eccentricity PAE = 1.0 PA = 1.0

Extreme 1-1 Extreme 1-2 Extreme 1-3

LSv=0.5 LL=0.50 LSv=0.50 LL=0.50 LSv=0.50 LL=0.50

DC=1.25 DC=1.25 DC=1.25
DW = 1.25 DW = 1.25 DW = 1.25

BR = 0.5 BR = 0.5 BR = 0.5

LSh=0.5 LSh=0.50 LSh=1.75
Critical for bearing
failure
PIR=0.5 PIR=1.0 PIR=0.5
DC=1.25 DC=1.25 DC=1.25
EV=1.35 EV=1.35 EV=1.350
PAE = 1.0 PAE = 0.5 PA = 1.0

Extreme 1-4 Extreme 1-5 Extreme 1-6

17
 2/2/2019

ABUTMENT PROPERTIES Concrete volume 27.045

a. Bacwall Height H bwall 2.00 m

t bwall L seat Base/Height 1.159

b. Backwall Thickness t bwall 0.30 m t slab

c. Stem Wall height H stem 5.00 m
t corbel
H bwall
d. Seat Length L seat 1.50 m
w corbel
e. Thickness of Seat Beam H seat 0.80 m
H seat
f. Thickness of Seat Haunch H haunch 0.60 m
H haunch
g. Stem wall
Backface slope Xb 1: 10 t topstem
H stem
Fontface slope Xf 1: 10 m

bottom thickness t botstem 1.92 m

Backface Frontface
top thickness t topstem 1.20 m slope 1: Xb slope 1: Xf
Water Level*
h. Heel Length L heel 7.28 m
b edge
i. Toe Length L toe 1.00 m

j. Footing thickness t foot 1.80 m

t foot
k. Total Abutment height H abut 8.80 m

l. Total Abutment Footing LengthB foot 10.20 m

t botstem Elevation 0 .0 0
L heel L toe
m. Thickness of approach slab t slab 0.30 m
B foot
n. Thickness of corbel t corbel 0.30 m Abutment Dimensions
o. Width of corbel w corbel 0.30 m Hs

p. Length of approach slab L slab 6.00 m

q. Total width of footing L foot 30.00 m

r. Distance to edge of slope b edge 1.00 m

s. Distance to toe of slope Hs 5.00 m

t. Overburden height Ho 0.60 m Toe of slope

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Concrete compressive Strength f'c 28.00 M pa

Yield strength (main) fymain 414.00 M pa

Yield strength (secondary) fysec 276.00 M pa

BACKFILL PROPERTIES
g
3
Unit weight fill 19.00 kN/m

Friction angle f fill 33.00 deg

Cohesion c fill 0.00 kPa

EXISTING FOUNDATION PROPERTIES

Unit weight g found 19.00 kN/m3

Friction angle f found 35.00 deg

d found 23.33 deg

Cohesion c found 0.00 kPa

SPT-N Value at footing level N found 0.00

WATER LEVELS
Design Flood Level DFL 1.00 m

Ordinary Water Level OWL 0.00 m

Lowest Water Level LWL -1.00 m

18
2/2/2019

19
2/2/2019

20
 2/2/2019

Strength I-4 Vu Hu From toe Mu

Load hi gi Qi h i g i Qi h i g i Qi xo yo h i g i Qi
DC-1 1 1.25 649.1 811.35 - -3.14 - -2548.53
DC-2 1 1.25 207.4 259.29 - -1.55 - -401.90
DC-3 1 1.25 21.6 27.00 - -2.45 - -66.15
EV 1 1.35 965.5 1303.38 - -5.56 - -7250.50
DW-1 1 1.5 22.5 33.75 - -1.55 - -52.31
DW-2 1 1.5 3.4 5.06 - -2.45 - -12.40
LL+IM 1 1.75 78.3 136.98 - -1.55 - -212.32
LSh 1 1.75 30.9 - 53.99 - 4.40 237.57
LSv 1 1.75 83.0 145.17 - -6.56 - -952.08
PL 1 1.75 7.2 12.60 - -1.55 - -19.53
BR 1 1.75 10.9 - 19.02 - 6.80 129.31
PA 1 1.5 208.4 - 312.57 - 2.93 916.87
WA 1 1 -100.0 -100.03 - -5.10 - 509.99
TU 1 0 0.0 - 0.00 - 6.80 0.00
2634.55 385.58 -9721.97
Eccentricity
Factored vertical forces, Vu 2634.55 kN
Factored moments at toe, Mu 9721.97 kN-m
Eccentricity, e = (Mu/Vu - Bfoot/2) 1.408 < Bfoot/3 = 3.40 (soil) OK
Foundation stress 9Bfoot/20 = 4.59 (rock)
Where the wall is supported on soil:
Reduced footing Length, L foot' 7.38 m 16.2.4.1
vertical stress (VU/L foot') 356.97 kPa Governs
Where the wall is supported on rock: 16.2.4.1
DFL O WL LWL
Max soil pressure 472.46 kPa
qu fqn/qu e/emax fH n/H u qu fqn/qu e/emax fH n/H u qu fqn/qu e/emax fH n/H u
Min soil Pressure 44.28 kPa
S t re ngt h I- 1 181.82 3.61 0.33 2 .6 0 191.11 3.52 0.31 2.76 191.11 3.52 0.31 2.76
qu 356.97 kPa < fqn = 676.137 kPa OK
S t re ngt h I- 2 249.51 2.81 0 .4 5 3.18 257.85 2.77 0.43 3.34 257.85 2.77 0.43 3.34
fqn/qu 1.89
S t re ngt h I- 3 320.97 2.10 0.36 3.80 330.04 2.09 0.35 3.93 330.04 2.09 0.35 3.93
Failure by Sliding
S t re ngt h I- 4 356.97 1.89 0.41 3.83 3 6 5 .6 4 1.8 8 0.40 3.95 3 6 5 .6 4 1.8 8 0.40 3.95
Sum of Horizontal forces, H u 385.58 kN
M a x/ M in R e s ult s 3 5 6 .9 7 1.8 9 0 .4 5 2 .6 0 3 6 5 .6 4 1.8 8 0 .4 3 2 .7 6 3 6 5 .6 4 1.8 8 0 .4 3 2 .7 6
Base resistance (H n =Vutanf) 1844.73 kN
M aximum so il pressure (Qu) Facto red Resistance (fQn)
Reduction factor 0.80
365.64 kN < 688.573 OK 1.88
fHn 1475.79 kN
M aximum eccentricity 1.542 m < Eccentricity Limit (Lf oot /3) 3.399 OK 2.20
fHn/Hu 3.83
Sliding (fVn/Vu) 2.598 > 1.0 OK 2.60

S um m a ry o f S t re ngt h Lim it S t a t e R e s ult s

21
 2/2/2019

Extreme I-5 Vu Hu From toe Mu

Load hi gi Qi h i g i Qi h i g i Qi xo yo h i g i Qi
DC-1 1 1.25 649.1 811.35 - -3.14 - -2548.53
DC-2 1 1.25 207.4 259.29 - -1.55 - -401.90
DC-3 1 1.25 21.6 27.00 - -2.45 - -66.15
EV 1 1.35 965.5 1303.38 - -5.56 - -7250.50
DW-1 1 1.5 22.5 33.75 - -1.55 - -52.31
DW-2 1 1.5 3.4 5.06 - -2.45 - -12.40
LL+IM 1 0.5 78.3 39.14 - -1.55 - -60.66
LSh 1 0.5 30.9 - 15.43 - 4.40 67.88
LSv 1 0.5 83.0 41.48 - -6.56 - -272.02
PL 1 0.5 7.2 3.60 - -1.55 - -5.58
BR 1 0.5 10.9 - 5.43 - 6.80 36.95
PA 1 0 360.0 - 0.00 - 2.93 0.00
PAE 1 0.5 416.8 - 208.38 - 2.93 611.25
WA 1 1 -100.0 -100.03 - 5.10 - 509.99
PIR 1 1 414.8 - 414.80 - 4.38 1817.70
2424.01 644.04 -7626.29
Eccentricity
Factored vertical forces, Vu 2424.01 kN
Factored moments at toe, Mu 7626.29 kN-m
Eccentricity, e = (Mu/Vu - Bfoot/2) 1.952 < 0.37B f oot = 3.739 (soil) OK
Foundation stress
Where the wall is supported on soil:
DFL OWL LWL
Reduced footing Length, L foot' 6.29 m 16.2.4.1
qu fqn /qu e/e max fHn/Hu qu fqn/qu e/e max fHn/Hu qu fqn /qu e/e max fHn/Hu
vertical stress (VU/L foot') 385.24 kPa Governs
E xt re m e I- 1 274.49 1.51 0.60 2.06 280.25 1.64 0.57 2.19 280.25 1.64 0.57 2.19
Where the wall is supported on rock: 16.2.4.1
E xt re m e I- 2 301.98 1.18 0 .6 9 1.8 8 305.79 1.30 0.65 1.99 305.79 1.30 0.65 1.99
E xt re m e I- 3 274.49 1.51 0.60 2.06 280.25 1.64 0.57 2.19 280.25 1.64 0.57 2.19
Max soil pressure 513.65 kPa
E xt re m e I- 4 363.14 1.22 0.47 2.89 370.38 1.31 0.45 3.00 370.38 1.31 0.45 3.00
Min soil Pressure 0.00 kPa
E xt re m e I- 5 385.24 1.0 1 0.52 2.64 3 9 1.7 0 1.09 0.50 2.74 3 9 1.7 0 1.09 0.50 2.74 qu 385.24 kPa < fqn = 389.306 kPa OK
E xt re m e I- 6 363.14 1.22 0.47 2.89 370.38 1.31 0.45 3.00 370.38 1.31 0.45 3.00 fqn/qu 1.01
M a x/ M in R e s ult#s# # # 1.0 1 0 .6 9 1.8 8 3 9 1.7 0 1.0 9 0 .6 5 1.9 9 3 9 1.7 0 1.0 9 0 .6 5 1.9 9 Failure by Sliding
Sum of Horizontal forces, H u 644.04 kN
Maximum soil pressure (Qu) 385.24 kN < Factored Resistance (fQn ) 389.306 OK 1.01
Base resistance (H n =Vutanf) 1697.31 kN
Maximum eccentricity 2.331 m < Eccentricity Limit (L foot/3) 3.399 OK 1.46
Reduction factor 1.00
Sliding (fVn/Vu) 1.879 > ## OK 1.88
fHn 1697.31 kN
fHn/Hu 2.64
Summary of Extreme Limit State Results

Comparing it to Allowable Stress Design

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Seismic Case 1 Vu Hu From toe Mu
Load hi gi Qi h i g i Qi h i g i Qi xo yo h i g i Qi
DC-1 1 1 649.1 649.08 - -3.14 - -2038.82
DC-2 1 1 207.4 207.43 - -1.55 - -321.52
DC-3 1 1 21.6 21.60 - -2.45 - -52.92
EV 1 1 965.5 965.47 - -5.56 - -5370.74
DW-1 1 1 22.5 22.50 - -1.55 - -34.88
DW-2 1 1 3.4 3.38 - -2.45 - -8.27
LL+IM 1 0.5 78.3 39.14 - -1.55 - -60.66
LSh 1 0.5 30.9 - 15.43 - 4.40 67.88
LSv 1 0.5 83.0 41.48 - -6.56 - -272.02
PL 1 0.5 7.2 3.60 - -1.55 - -5.58
BR 1 0.5 10.9 - 5.43 - 6.80 36.95
PA 1 0 360.0 - 0.00 - 2.93 0.00
PAE 1 1 360.0 - 360.05 - 2.93 1056.13
WA 1 1 -100.0 -100.03 - 5.10 - 509.99
PIR 1 0.5 414.8 - 207.40 - 4.38 908.85
1853.64 588.31 -5585.61
Eccentricity
Vertical forces, V 1853.64 kN
Moments at toe, M 5585.61 kN-m
Eccentricity, e = (M/V - Bfoot/2) 2.085 < .3333B f oot = 3.40 (soil) OK
Bearing Failure
Where the wall is supported on soil:
Reduced footing Length, L foot' 6.03 m 16.2.4.1
vertical stress (V/L foot') 307.57 kPa Governs
Where the wall is supported on rock: 16.2.4.1
Max soil pressure 410.10 kPa
Min soil Pressure 0.00 kPa
qmax 307.57 kPa < Qall = 396.9 kPa (qu/1.125) OK
Qu 446.50
Failure by Sliding Failure by Overturning
Sum of Horizontal forces 588.31 kN Resisting Moment 2794.7
Base resistance (H =Vtanf) 1297.93 kN Overturning Moment 2579.8
Factor of Safety (Sliding) 2.21 kN < 1.125 Factor of Safety 1.08 < 1.5

22
 2/2/2019

1.75 LSv/1.75 LL+IM

DESIGN OF ABUTMENT COMPONENTS 1.25 DC
1.50 DW

1.3EH 1.75LSh 1.0 P AE 0.5LSh

Ld Ld
STRENGTH I EXTREME I

BACKWALL CORBEL

DESIGN OF ABUTMENT COMPONENTS

0.5P IR_backwall 1.0P IR_backwall

0.9 DC+Dw
1.75 LL

1.75 BR

0.5P IR_fill 1.0P IR_fill

0.5P IR_steam 1.0P IR_steam

1.3EH 1.0P AE 0.5LSh Max(0.5P AE, EH) 0.5LSh

1.75LSh
4db Ld
STRENGTH I EXTREME I EXTREME I
12db
STEM WALL

23
 2/2/2019

DESIGN OF ABUTMENT COMPONENTS

1.75 LSv

1.35 EV

qu min
1.25 DC qu max

FOOTING (TOP BARS) FOOTING BOTTOM BARS

600 mm (min)

900 mm (min)

24
 2/2/2019

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

25
 2/2/2019

TIPS:

1. Crack control is to be checked using Service I

2. Use smaller size bars with closer spacing as this is more effective in crack control
3. As much as possible keep spacing to 150mm
4. Use maximum toe length as possible as this will enhance stability
5. Consider other abutment options such as pile bent, bank seat on MSE wall
6. If sliding failure is the problem, add shear keys
7. If bearing failure is the problem, either enhance the existing ground or consider pile foundation

26