Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Bridge Engineering 158
June 2005 Issue BE2
Pages 63 –69
Paper 13989
Received 13/10/2004
Accepted 31/01/2005
Keywords:
bridges/composite structures/ Oliver John Riches
design methods & aids Senior Engineer, Arup Scotland,
West Lothian, Scotland
A simplified integral composite bridge connection
O. J. Riches MSc, DIC, CEng, MICE, MIStructE, N. A. Carstairs MA, CEng, MICE, MIHT and A. E. K. Jones PhD, CEng, MICE
Fully integral composite bridges provide a cost-effective
solution in many situations. The connection between the
steel girders and a reinforced concrete abutment at the
position of maximum shear, moment and axial force does
however pose a significant design challenge. Following
earlier experience with checking a design using the
method described in SCI report 180, the authors have
developed an alternative connection detail, which has so
far been successfully used on two projects. This greatly
simplifies the transfer of forces at the connection and
improves buildability significantly. Further research by
the authors was carried out to identify the pitfalls
when designing to current practice and to develop
rigorous analysis, design and detailing rules that
ensure the effectiveness of the design of this new
connection. This paper describes the connection and its
application to Boathouse Bridge over the A66 in
Stockton-on-Tees.
1. INTRODUCTION
Composite steel girder concrete deck bridges are a cost-effective
solution for medium spans (e.g. motorway and dual carriageway
bridges). This form of construction offers additional advantages
including easy assembly of girders on site, rapid erection and
construction and the minimisation of disruption to traffic.
Further benefits can be achieved by providing a fully integral
bridge, such as minimising long-term maintenance requirements,
and reducing the extent of foundation works.
Connecting steel girders to a reinforced concrete abutment at the
position of maximum shear, moment and axial force does pose a
significant design challenge. To this end an innovative
connection detail has been developed which ensured a robust and
effective design and simplified construction on site for Boathouse
Bridge a single-span composite, integral bridge.
Boathouse Bridge is part of a grade-separated interchange
and carries the South Stockton Link Road over the existing
A66 dual two-lane carriageway and a slip road. It was
designed for Birse Civils Ltd by Arup as part of a successful
design-and-build tender for Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
for Phase 2 of the link road, which included another highway
bridge, twin railway tunnels through a road embankment, and
associated retaining walls and embankments. Boathouse Bridge
(Fig. 1) crosses the A66 at an 188 skew, with a single clear
Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection
Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Neil Alexander Carstairs Anthony E. K. Jones
Associate, Arup, Newcastle Associate Director, Arup Research
upon Tyne and Development, London
skew span varying from 33.0 m to 34.7 m. The bridge
deck is 27 m wide, with 2 m verges and a carriageway up to
23 m wide.
This paper describes the development and implementation of this
connection detail, using Boathouse Bridge as a case study for its
design, fabrication and construction.
2. BEAM – ABUTMENT CONNECTION LOAD PATHS
The transfer of bending moments, shear and axial forces from the
deck to the abutment and the interaction of these load effects is
complex and the authors recognised that this would best be
justified using a strut-and-tie analysis of the load paths through
the connection.
Schlaich and Schaefer1,2 have proposed a unified design
approach for reinforced concrete structures that recognises that
classic beam theory used for design of elements is only valid for
certain regions of the structure. Simple rules are provided to
identify ‘B’ regions (standing for Bernoulli or beam) where beam
theory is valid and ‘D’ regions (discontinuity), for which beam
theory is not valid (i.e. a linear distribution of strain across the
section cannot be assumed). The connection between the deck
and abutment clearly falls into the category of a ‘D’ region
(Fig. 2). Schlaich and Schaefer also propose simple strut-and-tie
models to model the behaviour at these ‘D’ regions in a
manner analogous to the Morsch strut-and-tie models used for
the ultimate limit state design of beams for bending and shear.
Reinforcement is provided along the lines of the ties and
anchored within or past the nodes in the model and the struts go
through the concrete. The size of the struts and the areas of
reinforcement can be calculated directly from the forces in
the model.
For a reinforced concrete deck to abutment connection a simple
strut-and-tie model can transfer the loads through this region
(Fig. 3).
For the composite deck beam to abutment connection, the design
method in SCI Report 1803 relies on shear connectors and
transverse reinforcement to transfer the bottom compressive
flange forces into the concrete and then transfers the
concentrated bending moment applied by the beams into a
uniform moment on the abutment wall using torsion in the
concrete.
Riches et al. 63
 Fig. 1. Construction of Boathouse Bridge

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW INTEGRAL

COMPOSITE BRIDGE CONNECTION
In the course of an independent (Category III) check on a
connection designed in accordance with the worked example in
Fig. 3. Simple strut-and-tie mechanism for concrete beam/
the SCI report3 a number of concerns were raised with the
abutment connection
designer. The worked example contains several aspects of
reinforcement detailing that are not considered best practice. In
particular the detail involves the lapping of large bars in very
congested sections. No allowance is made for extended laps that
3.1. General arrangement of the connection
BS 5400 requires, nor the practicality of placing and vibrating
concrete in sections with such dense reinforcement. Torsion is Figure 4 shows an isometric sketch of the developed
carried with U-bar reinforcement which is not good practice due deck/abutment detail. The girder is embedded in the abutment
to the possibility of spalling (ACI 318R-02 cl R11.6.4.14). and composite action is ensured between the deck and top
Generally it was felt that the method of calculation in the SCI flange by shear studs. The fabricated stiffened bearing plate
example led to an extended load path that, although shown at the interface of the bottom flange and abutment is
straightforward for the steel work, created additional problems in designed to disperse the compressive stresses of the bottom
the reinforcement detailing. flange and apply these as a pressure on the front face of the
abutment.
When the authors later needed to design a similar connection for
Boathouse Bridge it was decided to develop a model based on the The load paths that are required to transfer the internal load
simple strut-and-tie arrangement (Fig. 3) instead of following the effects at the boundary and external forces applied to the
SCI approach.

The following key design issues were identified.

(a) The interaction of axial load, shear and bending at the

connection is not compatible with standard beam theory.
(b) The need to transfer high localised stresses from steel to
concrete without causing local failure in concrete.
(c) The geometry of girders/abutment and the need to
distribute load effects uniformly on to the abutment.
(d) Detailing of reinforcement (lap lengths, anchorages etc.).
(e) The limited thickness of the abutment in which to transfer the
compression forces in the bottom flange of the girder into the
abutment.

d1 d1
D B D

d2
B d2
D d2

Fig. 2. Typical ‘B’ and ‘D’ regions in an integral bridge Fig. 4. Proposed connection detail

64 Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection Riches et al.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 connection within the boundary can then be clearly defined and
used to justify a robust, well-detailed deck abutment connection.

This also leads to significant reductions in reinforcement density Top flange tie
and complexity at the connection.

3.2. Assumed load paths

The strut-and-tie model developed to justify the model for the Tie along back
Bottom flange strut of top of
transfer of forces through the composite steel/concrete
abutment
connection is shown in Fig. 5.

The model used assumes that the shear forces found at the
boundary are transferred to the abutment by a tension tie to the
Top flange tie
top flange at the end of the girder. This approach allows a simple
and safe model to be developed which has the following
advantages.

(a) It simplifies the arrangement of struts at the node behind the
bearing plate and allows the vertical component of the shear
to be transferred to the concrete below the top flange, instead
of in the highly stressed area at this node.
(b) It utilises the web in tension, similar to the tension field
action assumed by BS 5400 Part 35 to calculate the ultimate
shear capacity of the web.
In three dimensions, the diagonal struts are inclined to spread the
concentrated loads from the bearing plate into uniform load on
the reinforcement in the abutment wall and deck, with a tie
formed by transverse reinforcement at the top of the abutment
wall (Fig. 6).
The change in the force in the girder top flange, going from
tension (due to bending) to compression (due to the horizontal
component of the tie carrying shear in the web), is transferred
conventionally through shear connectors and transverse
reinforcement into the longitudinal deck reinforcement. In the
strut-and-tie model this transfer of load is modelled by a truss.
Fig. 6. Plan view of transfer of compression force in flange to
reinforcement in deck
3.3. Resolving forces behind the bearing plate
The zone behind the bearing plate is highly stressed and care is
required to accurately identify the principal stresses resulting
from the various struts that converge on this zone.
To this end the node has been split as shown in Fig. 7 and
described in detail by Schlaich and Schaefer.2 Note that the split
has to be perpendicular to one of the adjacent struts (reactions)
which itself joins the node at a face perpendicular to its direction.
This is permissible as long as the vertical and horizontal
stresses are the principal stresses and hence there is no shear
across the cut.
Sc
SF
SFH

SFV

3(a)

SB

3(b)

SGV

SGH SG

SD

Fig. 5. Detailed strut-and-tie model Fig. 7. Split node behind bearing plate—all forces compressive

Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection Riches et al. 65

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Figure 7 demonstrates the split node, and shows a simple
arrangement of the critical struts to model the internal node
forces which are aligned in the direction of the principal stresses.
To achieve this, the following criteria must be satisfied.
(a) The centroid of the combined horizontal forces in the two
split nodes must align with the original node position (i.e. no
shear across the horizontal struts and the horizontal bearing
stress is evenly distributed across the bearing plate).
(b) The horizontal force is split into two, corresponding to the
horizontal component of strut F and G respectively. Note that
in Fig. 7, nodes 3(a) and 3(b) are not located symmetrically
about the line of S B as for this case S FH . S GH.
(c) There are no unsupported edges or overlapping struts at the
boundary.
By inspection it can be seen that once a geometry that achieves
a compliant stress in the horizontal and vertical stresses has
been identified then the stresses in the remaining struts have
also been satisfied.2
Under certain conditions (e.g. under high axial deck forces and
correspondingly low deck hogging moments) it is possible that
the force in the front face of the abutment wall (element D) goes
into tension and this is shown in Fig. 8 (i.e. the strut force S D
shown in Fig. 7 becomes a tie force annotated T D in Fig. 8). To
address this, the tensile force T D should be applied as a
compression force at the top of the node and the compressive
vertical force in the node increased accordingly.
The effect of splitting the node also allows the beneficial effects
of the load dispersal through the bearing plate to be modelled
Sc
SF
SFH
SFV
SB
SGV
SGH SG
TD
Fig. 8. Split node behind bearing plate—tension in front face of
abutment
66 Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection
Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
which allows a reduction in the requirement for reinforcement on
the back of the abutment to be justified.
4. DETAILED DESIGN OF THE DECK/ABUTMENT
CONNECTION AT BOATHOUSE BRIDGE
The detailed design of the connection at the ultimate limit state
was carried out utilising the strut-and-tie model developed by
Arup shown in Fig. 5. A simple 458 load dispersal through the
abutment was sufficient to mobilise the deck/abutment
reinforcement. In addition the skews of the abutments were such
that bearing friction at the abutment face could be mobilised
to justify a resolved force in the line of the girder from the skewed
bearing plate.
4.1. Identification of boundary conditions
The boundary conditions applied to the strut-and-tie model were
identified from a global analysis using a three-dimensional
grillage model with the coexistent values of moment, shear and
axial load identified for each critical load combination at both
boundaries.
Figure 9 shows the typical load effects that were found at the
boundaries of the connection. Elements (1) and (2) represent the
grillage elements from the three-dimensional grillage model
used to obtain the forces at the boundary. Careful consideration
of the following issues was required for the interpretation of the
load effects from the 3D model to ensure that the forces applied to
the strut-and-tie model were statically in equilibrium.
(a) The external loads applied to the bridge between the defined
boundaries of the connection detail.
(b) The effect of load dispersal and the modelling of slab
elements as a grillage resulting in some discontinuity of
moment, shear force and axial force at node B due to torsion
and shear forces in the out of plane grillage elements.
A (1) B
(2)
C
Fig. 9. Forces applied at the boundaries
Riches et al.
 4.2. Strut-and-tie analysis
Scale: 1:14·6049
2D Stress, Max
The forces obtained from the grillage model were then applied to
Stresses are at MIDDLE of element
170·000 N/mm2
150·000 N/mm2
a strut-and-tie model analysed on a plane frame grillage using
100·000 N/mm2
4·00000 N/mm2 bar elements (i.e. elements that are only able to carry direct
3·00000 N/mm2
2·00000 N/mm2
1·00000 N/mm2
compression and tension forces).
0·0 N/mm2
-2·00000 N/mm2
-4·00000 N/mm2
-6·00000 N/mm2
-8·00000 N/mm2
-10·0000 N/mm2
The following procedure was utilised.
-100·000 N/mm2
-150·000 N/mm2
-170·000 N/mm2
Case: A4 "SLS Max My" (a) The initial geometry of the strut-and-tie model was defined
by the geometry and location of the reinforcement and
steelwork and an arbitrary effective width of the compression
node behind the bearing plinth.
(b) The internal boundary load effects (moment, axial load and
shear) and external forces applied to the connection within
y the boundary were applied to the strut-and-tie model.
x
(c) The vertical stresses in the node were checked and the strut-
Fig. 10. Minimum (tensile) projected stresses and-tie geometry revised accordingly until compliant
stresses were achieved.

80 l
mina te
m no
20 m ent of pla
A 650 edm te
emb o concre
int
Haunches

250
25
6

50
150

25
8 8 15 mm fillet
250 Haunch
weld
plate

250
600

GRD line 25
11 11
50
700

10 10 250
25 Bottom
150

flange

250
50 End Haunch
plate plate
6

150 25
70 No. holes for M36
400 End- 25
holding-down bolts
Horizontal plate
girders 2, 3, 6, 7 only 250
bracing cL T16
Reinforcement
bars
Detail 7 Section 8-8
(Scale 1:10) (Scale 1:10)
200

250 250 50
Web of girder 18 web
Web of girder Full butt
9 No. 30 mm holes

Beam
275 50

Cut away weld

at 150 mm c/c

25 web
15 mm Hole cut into
50 50 50
continuous fillet web of beam
welds all round 9 No. 30 mm
600 50 50 holes for T16
Bottom
reinforcement
flange
50 50 50 Web replaced Bottom
200

End-plate with 50 mm
25 flange
thick haunch plate
welded to end-plate
End-plate
700 ¥ 600 ¥ 50 mm thick 400 Varies, for setting
out see detail 7

Section 9-9 Section 10-10 Section 11-11

(Scale1:10) (Scale1:10) (Scale1:20)

Fig. 11. Connection fabrication details (all dimensions in mm)

Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection Riches et al. 67

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 The procedure was repeated for all critical load combinations and
the reinforcement and steelwork designed and detailed using the
enveloped resolved forces of the strut-and-tie model.

4.3. Serviceability Limit State analysis

In addition, a serviceability check was needed to ensure that the
service stresses in the steel girders were within the limits specified
by BS 5400 Part 35 and the reinforcement stresses, concrete
compressive stresses and concrete crack widths are within the
limits specified by BS 5400 Part 4.6

An in-plane finite-element analysis of the connection

demonstrated that peak stresses in the concrete occurred at the
soffit of the deck and the front face of the abutment (Fig. 10).
Fig. 13. Bracing below deck
Crack widths at these critical sections were calculated using the
load effects obtained from a global analysis for the deck (at the plinths cast on top of the abutment walls (which supported the
front of the abutment) and for the abutment (at the soffit of the self-weight of the deck until the beams were cast in) and secured
deck) and utilising the following section properties. with single holding-down bolts. The simple vertical starter bars in
(a) Composite deck: stiffness calculated taking into account the abutments contributed to the speed of erection. The outer
reinforcement and ignoring the concrete (cracked) and top pairs of girders were erected with prefabricated cantilever
flange (not anchored). formwork and working platforms to minimise risks due to work
(b) Abutment: cracked section properties (assuming no tension over the highway. Precast Omnia decking was placed between
in concrete) with the effects of tension stiffening taken into girders to provide a permanent safe working platform.
account when calculating crack widths in accordance with
BS 5400 Part 4.6 To minimise maintenance painting while giving an efficient
stability system for the top flange of the steelwork under wet
concrete loading, a single pair of girders were restrained by a
5. FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE system of plan bracing (see Fig. 13), with the other girders tied to
DECK – ABUTMENT CONNECTION OF this pair by orthogonal bracing within the depth of the
BOATHOUSE BRIDGE concrete deck. The plan bracing was set out so that, if necessary,
5.1. Fabrication of bearing stiffener
While the bracket detail was new to the fabricator it did not
pose any special challenges to him. To minimise weld sizes the
end-plate was made continuous through the bottom flange, and a
triangular section of web was replaced by a thicker plate to act as
a stiffener to the end-plate. Holes through the web allowed the
provision of continuity to anti-crack reinforcement in the front
face of the abutment. Extracts from the design drawing supplied
to the fabricator are shown in Fig. 11.

5.2. Deck erection

The eight, up to 36 m long, girders were each fabricated in one
continuous length, and transported to site and erected in braced
pairs. Erection was carried out during a single overnight
possession of the A66 (Fig. 12). Beams were landed on vertical

Fig. 12. Erection of main girders Fig. 14. Bracket detail before concreting

68 Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection Riches et al.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 6. CONCLUSIONS
The current trend towards integral bridges in the UK, to deliver
durable and low-maintenance solutions, has posed a significant
challenge particularly with regard to providing cost-effective,
buildable and technically sound connections.

The connection detail developed by Arup allows such bridges to

be constructed in a simple manner while providing an effective
and robust connection. This has realised the following benefits.

(a) Simplification of the reinforcement detailing and

construction.
(b) Robust and simple load path in comparison with current
practice.
(c) Integral connection between deck and abutment to minimise
maintenance requirement.

Boathouse Bridge provides a good example of how these

benefits were realised. While considerable effort was required to
develop this detail and the associated design rules, the authors
believe that it will have many future applications to provide
simple, robust, low-maintenance and cost-effective bridge
solutions.
Fig. 15. Beam to abutment connection before concreting

it could be removed during single lane closures of the road.
Bracing cast in to the abutments transferred load from the deck
down to the bottom flanges. To stabilise the bottom flange
under hogging moment, single sets of permanent K bracing
were provided at about 6 m from each end of the deck. The
other bracing visible in Fig. 13 provides temporary restraint
to the forces from the cantilever formwork/working
platform.
The deck concrete was poured in advance of the connection
concrete, to minimise hogging moments due to dead load.
5.3. Casting the connection
Figure 14 shows the bracket detail in position with all
the surrounding reinforcement placed, and Fig. 15
demonstrates the lack of congestion in the reinforcement prior to
concreting.
REFERENCES
1. SCHLAICH J. and SCHAEFER K. Design and detailing structural
concrete using strut-and-tie models. The Structural Engineer,
1991, 69, No. 6, 113 –125.
2. SCHLAICH J. and SCHAEFER K. Konstruieren im Stahlbetonbau.
Beton-Kalender (EIBL J. (ed.)), Ernst & Sohn Verlag, Berlin,
1993, Part II.
3. STEEL CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE . Integral Steel Bridges, Design of
a Single-span Bridge—Worked Example. SCI, Berkshire,
Publication Number: P180, 1997.
4. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE COMMITTEE 318. Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentry
(ACI 318R-02). ACI, Framington Hills, MI, 2002, cl R11.6.4.
5. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION . Steel Concrete and Composite
Bridges—Part 3: Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges.
BSI, London, 2000, BS 5400-3: 2000.
6. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION . Steel Concrete and Composite
Bridges—Part 4: Code of Practice for Design of Concrete
Bridges. BSI, London, 1990, BS 5400-4: 1990.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be approximately 2000– 5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/
journals for author guidelines and further details.

Bridge Engineering 158 Issue BE2 A simplified integral composite bridge connection Riches et al. 69

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.