Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Challenges and opportunities for the application of integral abutment

bridges in earthquake-prone areas: A review
Stergios A. Mitoulis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Integral Abutment Bridges (IABs) are robust structures without joints and bearings, hence they are less
Integral vulnerable to natural and manmade hazards, whilst they require minimal maintenance throughout their lifespan.
Abutment As a result of these engineering advantages, IABs are appealing to road and railway agencies and consultants.
Bridges
Despite their advantages, IAB design and construction is challenging and the main barriers for extensive use of
Seismic
Response
IABs originate from the interaction between the abutment and the backfill soil. This interaction causes perma­
Soil-structure interaction nent deflections of the backfill soil and enhanced soil pressures on the abutment of passive nature. Under strong
Benefits earthquake excitations, the response of IABs is strongly affected by the aforementioned interaction. Surprisingly,
no agreement has been reached to date in the international literature as to whether this is a beneficial or a
detrimental effect. The reasons for acknowledged disagreements in the literature indicates a conceptual gap in
IAB design and assessment and it, therefore, requires further investigation.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, the significance of this interaction in earthquake resistant IABs is
dependent on a number of factors, such as the type and intensity of the earthquake, the type, length and con­
dition of the bridge after a number of years of service, the type and height of the abutment, the bridge dynamic
characteristics, e.g. stiffness, damping, mass and the type of the backfill soil, among others. Many of these
competing and clashing, factors lead to worse or better IAB responses, and this depends on the additional inertia
mass of the backfill soil, the additional input motion exerted on the bridge from dual paths e.g. the foundation of
the abutment and the backfill soil, the dissipation capacity and stiffness of the abutment and backfill soil. With
the aim of better understanding the seismic response of IABs and opine with regard to the importance of the
abutment and backfill soil on the seismic response of IABs, a comprehensive state of the art review is conducted
in this paper. The review includes all the aspects relevant to the IAB-backfill interaction, with emphasis on IABs
subjected to earthquake excitations. The research-based evidence provided here postulates a very complex
interaction effect, which may have a positive or negative effect on IAB seismic responses. The evidence gathered
also suggests a minimal understanding of the potential benefits of the IAB-backfill interaction, yet a reasonable
understanding of the aggravated seismic response due to the same interaction in other instances. The paper
includes literature-based evidence and inferences on IAB seismic designs and concludes with the results of an
extended numerical study, which was conducted to provide further evidence with regard to the effect of the
bridge-backfill interaction on the seismic response and design of IABs. A representative IAB was utilised as the
base model and a comprehensive parametric study was conducted varying the abutment type and height, the
bridge length and the backfill soil properties. The results are evidence that, indeed, the backfill soil predomi­
nantly benefits the bridge as it reduces its bending moments and pier drifts, and which potentially can lead to
more economic designs. However, the IAB-backfill interaction is strongly case-dependent and therefore metic­
ulous and detailed modelling of the backfill soil is believed to be important to avoid underestimation of bridge
stress resultants and consequent under-designs.

E-mail address: s.mitoulis@surrey.ac.uk.

URL: https://www.infrastructuResilience.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106183
Received 27 February 2020; Accepted 12 April 2020
Available online 1 June 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.A. Mitoulis
1. Introduction
1.1. Advantages and disadvantages of IAB applications in earthquake-
prone areas
In bridges, the abutment has a unique dual role that is to support the
end-span of the bridge and the retaining of the backfill soil [1,2]. This
unique purpose of the abutment renders it susceptible to damages and
failures that resemble the ones of geo-structures, e.g. settlement, sliding
or rotation similar to retaining walls, or failures similar to the ones of
reinforced concrete structural components, e.g. extensive flexural
and/or shear cracking. This is due to the fact that the abutment, with the
wingwalls and the approach slab, and the backfill soil provide the
approach to the bridge, whilst they are part of the bridge earthquake
resisting system [3–7].
Abutments are differentiated mainly based on their connection with
the bridge deck. A seat-type abutment [8] supports the deck through
bearings, whilst expansion joints provide to the bridge deck structural
independence from the abutment backwall and accommodate deck
movements due to creep, shrinkage, thermal [9–11], potentially seismic
and other movements [12]. An abutment is told to be integral, mono­
lithic or end diaphragm abutment when it is connected rigidly to the
deck [13], thus has no expansion joints or bearings.
The latter, together with other morphological peculiarities of IABs,
give them many advantages over the conventional seat-type abutments,
including superior earthquake resistance [5,14–17], prevention of
dreadful span unseating mechanisms [18], limitation of the rotation
during liquefaction-induced lateral spreading [19] and redundancy
against multiple hazard effects [15], as IABs have less vulnerable com­
ponents (e.g. bearings) than their jointed counterparts [20] and the
possibility of unseating is eliminated. As a result, retrofitting of existing
multi-span simply supported bridges [21] into continuous, frame
structures is common, as converting them into IABs is said to enhance
their structural redundancy [22,23] and hence their resilience. Other,
not necessarily, seismic advantages and disadvantages of IABs have been
discussed extensively in the international literature [24–31] with the
main advantages collated in this paper are related to the durability and
the low maintenance cost of IABs. The most detailed description of these
advantages can be found in the literature [32], where IABs are proven to
be outperforming their non-integral counterparts in economy and safety
according to Ref. [33]. Their principal advantages stem from the
absence of expansion joints and bearings, making them the most
cost-effective system in terms of construction, maintenance, and
longevity. The cost of IABs is proven to be significantly lower in com­
parison to the one of bridges with seat-type abutments [34] at least in 27
states in the USA [35,36], whereas it is recognised that approximately
the same amount of expenditure is made for the construction and the
maintenance of jointed bridges [37]. Regarding the cost of earthquake
resistant bridges, IABs are found to lead to significant savings in com­
parison to bridges with bearings and expansion joints [5], considering
the cost of expansion joint and bearing replacement every 20 years.
Nevertheless, the design of IABs, not being an exact science, poses
certain design challenges [34,38]. The displacements of the deck, e.g.
due to thermal, creep, shrinkage effects, the consequent movements and
deflections of the abutment and its interaction with the backfill soil
cause several design issues. In particular, the bridge-backfill interaction
causes significant stress variations within the soil [39–41], build-up of
pressures [42,43], which eventually approach passive earth pressure
conditions [3,44], ratcheting effects [28,38,41,43–46], wedging and
densification of the soil behind the abutment. Also, creep, prestressing
and shrinkage of the deck cause considerable permanent dislocation of
the abutment [42] and settlements or heaving in the backfill [22,45,47],
which may reduce the driving safety. The latter is also related to the
known bump at the end of the bridge [48–50]. The aforementioned
design issues of IABs, in combination with the restrictions imposed by
the current design guidelines, constitute major barriers to their extended
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
application. Relevant design codes and imposed limitations, with regard
to IAB design, are further discussed in the following sections.
1.2. The importance of earthquake resistant IABs and their popularity in
bridge engineering
It is by now widely recognised that the informed and sound design
and construction of IABs is an important venture in bridge engineering
worldwide. More than ever, in recent years the design and construction
of IABs had been introduced in many new bridge designs for delivering
improved aesthetics and cost-effective solutions. There has been
consensus within Europe and USA that future design guidelines should
be in support of IABs. In particular, among other mandates of the
Eurocode Committees, IABs have gained significant attention in an effort
to encourage practitioners to implement IAB concepts. The latter is not
coincidental, in the sense that almost 70% of European countries use
integral bridges [51] and the same applies to the USA [52], where IABs
have doubled their number between 1995 and 2007 [53]. What might
be striking is that at no point, either in Eurocodes or design guideline in
the USA, the IAB concept is referred to as an enhanced earthquake
resistant bridge design. Antithetically, Eurocodes seem to discourage
IAB designs by requiring them to respond essentially in an elastic
manner for the design earthquake.
1.3. Morphology of earthquake resistant IABs and the role of the
abutment
In this section, the types of IABs are discussed with respect to their
foundations, diaphragm/wall section geometries, the approach (transi­
tion) slab, their wingwalls and their connections with the deck. Also, the
backfill soil is discussed as an integral part of IABs, including certain
design aspects, e.g. their drainage, reinforcement, type of the backfilling
soil i.e. sand or clay, and the use of modified, also known as engineered,
soils.
IABs do not have a certain typology worldwide [52]. The later source
suggests that the main difference between the practice in Europe and
USA in IAB design is the use of pile foundations with stub abutments in
the USA, which is in direct contradiction to many US agency re­
quirements [53,54]. So diverse the type of IABs is, that PD 6694–1 [46]
has described at least three types of frame abutments, shown in Fig. 1a-c,
also known as full-height abutments as they have relatively great height
in the range of 5 to 8 m, one embedded wall, Fig. 1d, three different bank
pad abutments. Fig. 1e-g, including an abutment on discrete piles
-similar to the type met in the USA-three different flexible support
abutments, Fig. 1h-j, with piles or columns in sleeves or reinforced earth
wall or with reinforced earth wall being independent of the abutment
and another three semi-integral abutments, Fig. 1k-m, also shown in
published research [55–58]. Based on the Caltrans bridge memo to de­
signers [59] integral abutments can be further categorised as diaphragm
abutments, bin abutments, and rigid-frame abutments. Heights, mate­
rials, boundary conditions and connections are also varying drastically
among IAB designs. Notably, no studies exist that systematically
compare the behaviour of IABs having different types of integral abut­
ments. Gaining knowledge on their behaviour would be of paramount
importance for selecting the most efficient type of abutment, not only for
serviceability design situations but also under seismic excitations. There
are only a few studies that compared the behaviour of different design
choices, as for example White et al. [52,60] examined the influence of
several design considerations, such as the foundation, the backfill, the
influence of wingwalls etc, yet no reference was made to the seismic
performance of these design alternatives. Hence, there is a gap in our
understanding as to which type of IAB would be the preferable option for
earthquake resistant bridges.
The absence of certain design guidelines for IAB analysis, design and
assessment also reflects on the use of approach slabs and wingwalls. For
example, there are studies and designs of IABs where the absence of
S.A. Mitoulis
Fig. 1. Types of abutment for integral bridge construction (from PD6694-1 [46]).
approach elements and slabs, which results in the so-called open-end
abutment, was found to be beneficial, e.g. see Ref. [61], whereas other
studies provide solutions against backfill settlements and/or heaving
with transition slabs, e.g. Ref. [49,50,62]. Generally, it seems that if no
approach slab is used there is a possibility that in the long-term a bump
will be formed at the end of the bridge, whereas the slab will span over
the void initially. However, the approach slab might fail in flexure [63]
with time, as it has to receive bending moments. Slabs have small or
larger lengths and edges driven into the backfill, e.g. pin-like, and they
can be supported or anchored on the abutment [62] and seating on the
backfill or an independent sleeper slab [64]. Depending on their design,
the approach slab might be effectively used as an external restrainer in
earthquake resistant bridge designs to minimise deck movements,
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
toward economic designs [65,66].
Similarly, the use, orientation and connection of wingwalls with IABs
has been studied before, with the most substantial research effort being
conducted by Paraschos [36]. Also, in past research [46] it is mentioned
that wingwalls should normally be designed to be structurally inde­
pendent of the abutments or at least keep their size small to minimise
their influence on the structural system of the bridge [13] or change
their orientation. In the United States, 32% of state agencies permit the
use of flared wingwalls, while 65% permit the use of in-line wingwalls
[52]. It is also noticed that wingwalls do not get a lot of attention from
the designer [67], whereas their effect on the seismic design of IABs has
not been discussed by any researches apart from papers [68,69] where
the wingwalls are utilised as an additional external support that enables
S.A. Mitoulis
restraining the seismic movements of the bridge, at the cost of reducing
the period of the bridge.
The soil type of the backfill, i.e. granular or cohesive, also plays an
important role in the response of the IAB, as for example, non-cohesive
soils do not develop ratcheting effects [43,70]. Yet, there are no certain
design prescriptions for the design of IABs apart from research-based
observations and/or recommendations that granular materials are
preferable for bridge backfilling material, e.g. Refs. [70–72], and other
studies that observed that the settlement and erosion of the granular
backfills are the main causes of settlements observed at bridge approach
pavements [73]. Regarding the seismic performance of IABs, there has
not been substantial research examining the influence of the backfill soil
type on the response and dynamic behaviour of IABs, apart from Ref. [9]
which, however, is not relevant to dynamic or seismic loads. Most
importantly, the condition of the backfill soil at the occurrence of the
design earthquake and its prior deterioration, e.g. settlement and/or
densification during the bridge service, has not been examined before
systematically, apart from the paper recently published by Tsinidis et al.
[74] which provided evidence that it is not safe to neglect the service­
ability deterioration of the backfill when assessing the seismic response
of IABs, also evidenced before [75].
1.4. Abutment behaviour for SLS and ULS including seismic effects
There are two main conceptual considerations that the design of an
IAB has to account for that are (ULS) i.e.: (a) the ability of the abutment
to sustain the vertical loads of the deck, the additional permanent loads
and the traffic loads, and SLS that is (b) the ability of the abutment to
sustain larger or smaller movements during the bridge service, namely
thermal movements, creep and shrinkage permanent movements of the
deck. Thus, ideally, the abutment should have an adequate vertical ca­
pacity to withstand the dead and variable loads of the bridge, whilst
being flexible enough to absorb the movements of the deck. Secondarily,
the retained backfill soil should be flexible enough, i.e. loose, to absorb
the horizontal movements and rotations of the moving abutment,
developing, if possible, minimal earth pressures toward the latter.
Equally, it should be adequately stiff in its vertical direction to minimise
its deflections i.e. settlements and/or heaving. The deck, which
commonly prestressed, should be able to withstand the additional
stresses due to the in-service interaction of system abutment-backfill,
and avoid or minimise tensile cracking [76–78], at its top and bottom
flanges depending on whether the abutment is moving toward or away
from the backfill soil, as described before [21]. The rest of the structural
and non-structural components of the abutment, e.g. the approach slabs
and elements and the wingwalls, should be designed to serve their
purposes and to minimise the adverse interaction with the expanding
and contracting bridge deck.
During earthquakes, the bridge-backfill interaction is substantially
different from the in-service interaction. The dynamic bridge-backfill
interaction introduces: (a) increased inertia loads on the bridge and
the backfill soil, the latter depending on the critical length of the backfill
soil, i.e. the mass of the soil that participates during the earthquake,
which is related to the critical backfill length introduced by Zhang and
Makris [79]; (b) supplementary damping and hence energy dissipa­
tion, due to the yielding of the soil and the collision of the abutment on
the backfill soil; (c) additional input motion, as the earthquake exci­
tation is exerted on the bridge not only through the foundations but also
from the backfill soil directly onto the abutment. For the additional
inertia loads, generally, these correspond to the case where the abut­
ment is in contact with the backfill soil, as the backfill soil does not
contribute its mass when the abutment is not interacting with it. The
same applies for b) and c) mentioned above, yet it is a tedious task to
understand how much the backfill contributes toward damping and
additional input motion as it is not continuously involved in the seismic
response of IABs. Regarding the dissipation of the dynamic SSI effects,
this is recognised by Caltrans section 2.1.5 [3] where the damping ratio
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
of the integral abutment bridges is ranging from 5 to 10%. Generally, the
abutment and the backfill soil has been utilised in the international
literature as a fusing mechanism [65,80,81]. Damping ratios for a
long-span full height integral bridge were estimated in the range of
10–15% [6]. Similarly, it was found [82] that the identified modal
damping ratio was a few times higher than the recommended design
values, yet this refers to a short-span bridge i.e. a long-span culvert, an
indication that in short span IABs/culverts the soil enables significant
energy dissipation capabilities. Increased damping ratios were also
introduced by Goel [83], at least for the response of the abutment in the
transverse direction and the damping ratios were increased almost lin­
early with the coefficient abutment flexibility parameter (AFP), which
provides a measure of the integral abutment seismic participation in the
transverse response of the bridge [84]. With regard to the additional
earthquake excitation that might be introduced at the bridge from the
abutment, the research of Zhang and Makris [79] has found that the
kinematic interaction within the backfill soil might amplify the motion
within the relatively soft backfill soil and this might lead to the increase
of the bridge displacements, as the motion of the latter is driven by the
backfill soil [85,86], leading to potential pier damages. Similar con­
clusions were drawn before [87], where it is concluded that soil layers of
low stiffness and strength may result in a permanent displacement of the
abutments and foundations, thus imposing important kinematic condi­
tions to the bridge structure. The evidence provided in this paper based
on an extended numerical study is that the longer the integral bridge the
smaller the influence of the mass of the backfill soil and hence the lesser
the kinematic effects on the response of the bridge. The latter does not
contradict previous researches, as in shorter IABs the kinematic effects
were found to be dominating the IAB seismic responses indeed. Also, the
response of IABs is strongly dependent on the type and height of the
abutment, further evidence is provided in section 4 below.
1.5. IAB failures to diverse hazards with emphasis on earthquakes
Regarding the damages and failure modes of integral bridges subject
to seismic loads, these include the settlement of the backfill soil [61] and
bridge foundations, the permanent dislocations of the bridge and its
foundations [87] and the generation of residual stresses within the
abutment, the piers and the deck and excessive soil pressures causing
cracking of the abutment [88,89] and the deck. The failure modes of
abutments are similar to the ones of retaining walls, i.e. stability damage
and component damage, as described before [90] i.e. sliding failure,
bearing failure associated with overturning, deep-seated sliding failure
and structural failure, usually developed in the abutment mid-height
[40], due to excessive earth pressures. Regarding other seismic dam­
ages and failures of IABs, during the 2010–11 earthquake sequences
[91], it was observed that the liquefaction induced lateral spreading
followed by abutment rotation, with plastic hinging in the abutment
piles and cracking of the superstructure-abutment knee joints. The
wingwalls suffered considerable rotations due to liquefaction and lateral
spreading and the approach element was damaged. Apart from these
elements, soil lateral spreading can cause the approach embankments
and abutments to settle and the underlying soil to “flow” plastically from
each approach embankment to the back of the embankment and mainly
to the centre of the river channel [92].
With regard to serviceability failure modes [93], 46% of the de­
signers consider the settlement of the backfill soil, 28% the cracking of
the approach slab and 26% the deck cracking as the most important and
frequent damages of IABs, whereas the increased soil pressures are the
main concerns causing the problems mentioned above. Other damages
and/or failures of IABs, as shown in Fig. 2 below, include [73] settle­
ments, faulting and/or shearing of the approach slab and formation of
the gap-at-the-end-of-the-bridge [49], due to the formation of a void
underneath, shearing of the paving notch, lateral movement of the
abutment away from the backfill soil due to the permanent dislocations,
owed to creep and shrinkage, settlement of the foundation soil, soil
S.A. Mitoulis
Fig. 2. (a) Common problems and failures of integral abutments (not in scale) and load effects on the abutment due to (b1) active soil pressures, (b2) thermal
expansion of the deck, (b3) contraction, (b4) ratcheting effects, (b5) shortening of deck due to creep, shrinkage and prestressing and (6) dead and moving loads
(vertical) and/or deck thermal gradients.
erosion and/or scour at abutments [94], resulting in the exposure of the
abutment foundation, and fracture of the protection of the slope.
Also, secondary structural and non-structural components might be
damaged and fail during the bridge service. The wingwalls typically fail
due to horizontal rotations [95,96], whilst the backfill soil, fails under
passive or active conditions [97]. These damages are strongly dependent
on the daily and seasonal movements of the deck and the in-service
loading of the bridge. For example, the piles of the abutment are sub­
ject to fatigue effects [98–100] due to a large number of daily and
seasonal cycles leading to their deterioration and thus to reduced
bearing capacity. Yet, the use of a “pin” detail at pile head is not rec­
ommended for seismic applications [101], as its performance under
dynamic loading is uncertain. Further to that, IABs and their backfills
deteriorate with time, thus their stiffness and their dissipation capacity
change dramatically during their life. As a result, the dynamic properties
of the bridge also change substantially [74].
1.6. IAB serviceability and seismic response based on monitoring evidence
Irrespective of the detail and attempted accuracy of finite element
simulations of IABs, models might be ignoring or omitting important
aspects of the in-service and dynamic SSI and/or the condition of the
structural components of IABs, which deteriorates during the bridge
service due to cracking and stress re-distribution. To better understand
the behaviour and damages of the main and secondary structural com­
ponents of IABs it is essential to validate the numerical models by means
of testing and monitoring techniques. Extensive testing on IABs has been
conducted over the last 25–30 years, putting emphasis mainly on the
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
serviceability of IABs. In particular, there has been extensive research
for validating numerical models that are utilised for design purposes and
also investigate the effectiveness of different IAB design alternatives.
There have been both laboratory testing of model scaled abutment-
backfill systems, as well as on-site monitoring efforts, of real IABs.
Typically, measurements were taken of the horizontal displacements of
the abutment, its rotation, the abutment pile strains, the earth pressures
behind the abutment, the settlements, the deck strains, the transition
slab strains, the superstructure displacements, girder rotation and axial
forces, the temperatures, i.e. air and bridge temperature, and the ther­
mal gradients, as a means to gain a better understanding of the
serviceability behavior of the bridge [38,102,103]. Monitoring of IABs
has been one of the extensively funded tasks of the TRL and the CBDG in
the UK [104–107]. Equally, monitoring of IABs has been extensive in the
USA [89,108–114] and elsewhere [82,115]. Common instrumentation
used in IAB monitoring projects includes among others earth pressure
cells, inclinometers, extensometers, strain gauges, thermistors, moisture
gauges [116], measuring the aforementioned resultants.
In regards to seismic loading, large-scale testing on bridge abutments
has been conducted before in an effort to better understand the contri­
bution of the abutment to the earthquake resisting system (ERS) of the
bridge [117–120] and resulted in recommendations for modelling the
contribution of the abutment to the ERS of IABs. Among other efforts,
the Meloland Road and the Painter Street overcrossing have been
instrumented by the Strong Motion Instrumentation Program of the
California Division of Mines and Geology [121]. The two representative
IABs were subjected to the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake and the
Painter Street Bridge was subjected to the 1992 Petrolia earthquake. The
S.A. Mitoulis
recorded responses have been a great source of understanding short span
IAB responses and provided insights into the bridge abutment capacity
and stiffness, as reported before [83,122]. These studies concluded that
the mass, stiffness and dissipation capacity of the backfill soil alters
drastically the behaviour or short span IABs. The evidence also suggests
that there is a significant kinematic interaction that takes place within
softer backfills and magnifies the input motion, which may increase the
seismic input motion and hence the response resultants of IABs, e.g. pier
bending moments and deck displacements.
Apart from monitoring and large-scale testing of IABs, there are also
available laboratory test results on model integral abutments and
backfill soil. Among other tests, a UPVC box was used before to measure
settlements of the backfill and pressures toward the abutment, wedging
and/or ratcheting of the backfill soil [45]. Other researches put more
emphasis on the validation of code recommendations [123], the un­
derstanding of the behavior of clays [42,124] or the ratcheting behavior
of granular backfills [125], testing of the fatigue behavior of novel
semi-integral abutment connections [24,126] or conducted triaxial tests
to understand the development of lateral stresses on the abutment and
the design of their foundations [127]. Regarding centrifuge testing, Ng
et al. [128] conducted tests to reveal the complex interaction of mech­
anisms, which arise between the embankment and the abutment wall
and identified rigid body motions of the abutment as well as bending
deflections. Other studies utilised expensive centrifuge testing apparatus
[28,43,96] for interpreting IAB responses. Yet, none of the above studies
provides evidence with regard to the beneficial or detrimental effect of
the backfill soil in earthquake resistant IABs, and this is a question that
needs answering for encouraging designers to adopt IAB concepts and
fuel current design guidelines with evidence-based requirements and
recommendations.
2. Available knowledge and major challenges in earthquake
resistant IABs
2.1. Limitations in maximum lengths, skewness and curvature
The longest IABs are the Isola della Scala in Verona [129] in Italy,
which was a total continuous length of 400.8 m, and the Happy Hollow
Creek in Tennessee USA, with a length of 358.4 m. The length of IABs
has always been a challenge in bridge engineering. It is noteworthy that
numerous papers and design guidelines have limitations with regard to
the maximum length and/or skewness of IABs e.g. a maximum IAB
length of 457 m is established [130]. Substantial research on the esti­
mation of IAB maximum length limits has been conducted for bridges on
clay by Dicleli et al. [100]. Also, length limits have been defined on the
basis of either the low-cycle fatigue performance of steel H-piles under
cyclic thermal variations [131] or based on formulas, which take into
account the flexural capacity of the abutments [47,132,133]. Other
studies that aimed at increasing the length limits of IABs are reported
before [134], where the abutment height; the soil stiffness; the backwall
to abutment stiffness; and the pile orientation were examined as factors
that can be adjusted during the design to achieve longer IABs, as well as
other researches [135], where alternative measures were sought in
recycled materials to alleviate excessive soil pressures and settlements
for IABs exposed to earthquake excitations.
The length limits of IAB is commonly correlated to the characteristics
of the bridge, such as the skewness, the abutment and pile design, the
climate and the material of the bridge. In past research [111] the cor­
relation of maximum IAB length and skewness on the design and cross
section of the steel piles is studied and it is concluded that the larger the
skewness the smaller the allowable length of the IAB is. Other re­
searchers suggest that the main parameters that limit the length of IABs
are the bridge material and the climate [12,36,136,137]. It was also
found that the maximum allowable length for steel superstructures is the
smallest among bridges made of other materials. For example,
cast-in-situ and precast concrete bridges have the maximum allowable
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
length, and almost double the one of steel superstructures. In other re­
searches [138] the length limit for concrete IABs is found to be 200 m
whilst the same limit is 100 m for steel bridges. Similar limits regarding
steel and concrete bridges are imposed by Ref. [139]. Equally, the
maximum allowable length limits are smaller for cold climates, in
comparison to the corresponding lengths for moderate climates [131].
The length, the skewness and curvature of IAB are also part of
available design guidelines particularly in the US [140]. Based on the
latter research, it is evident that the limits for the maximum length and
skew angle vary across different States, whilst the length of 540 m seems
to be the maximum feasible length. In the UK, all highway bridges below
60 m in total length and with skews not exceeding 30� , should be
designed and constructed as IAB [12]. However, the maximum allow­
able movement for an integral abutment is 40 mm [46], which imposes
an upper limit to the IAB length, i.e. bridge is not expected to exceed
100 m in length, considering that this movement is expected due to
thermal contraction, expansion, creep and shrinkage. The corresponding
movement limit is 50 mm [53] in the US. Other length limits found in the
literature is 100 m–120 m in Finland [50,115], 60 m in Switzerland
[141], whilst IAB length limits are stricter in Japan, i.e. 40 m for steel
girder bridges and 30 m with precast girders [142], potentially due to
the fact that the country is prone to earthquakes.
Therefore, it is evident that the above efforts for expanding the
length limits of IABs focus mainly on the serviceability behaviour of IABs
and the behaviour of the piles, whereas only a few studies touched upon
the response of the backfill soil and how this influences the maximum
design lengths. General guidance concerning the maximum length of
IABs is difficult to be provided. This is due to the variability of the
backfill soil, either with or without approach slab, and the pavement
details, as well as driving comfort criteria, which vary considerably in
different countries. Also, the length of IABs is mainly related to the in-
service movements of the bridge and not on the seismic behaviour of
the bridge and the resulting dynamic or seismic soil-structure interac­
tion effects. The latter is believed to have been avoided systematically as
it is not clear across the literature as to whether the dynamic SSI between
the bridge and the backfill soil is beneficial, detrimental or very case-
specific.
2.2. Modelling of the stiffness, mass and damping of IABs imposed to
earthquake excitations
Modelling of IABs is a challenge to researchers and designers. This is
due to the time-consuming and expensive models required for analysing
detailed 3D models, as it is now understood that simplified models are
not capable of capturing accurately the evolution of the stiffness,
damping and backfill participating mass throughout the earthquake
excitation [143]. Furthermore, the in-service SSI effects, which take
place during the bridge expansion and contraction, change drastically
the dynamic system of IABs. Thus, analysing IABs for earthquake exci­
tations, without considering the deterioration of the system
bridge-foundation-backfill prior to the seismic, event may be unsafe
[74].
Caltrans in x7.8.1 [3] and AASHTO [4] provide equations for the
estimation of the abutment stiffness per millimetre of movement to­
ward the backfill soil and per transverse unit length of the abutment. The
value of 28.7KN/mm/m that is provided in the codes is based on tests
conducted by Maroney [144]. The stiffness refers to the combined
stiffness of the abutment and the backfill soil. This stiffness must be
multiplied with the width and height of the abutment to estimate the
total stiffness of the abutment. Thus, the pressure proposed by Caltrans
depends on the abutment dimensions and wall displacement. In NCHRP
12–49 [7], the pressures also depend on the soil type [145]. However,
the estimated stiffness is based on pseudo-static, i.e. non-dynamic, tests
and assumes that the abutment exhibits translational movements toward
the backfill soil, which is accurate if the abutment is stiff and short and
thus exhibits minimal rotations. However, in the above models larger
S.A. Mitoulis
rotations of the abutment, the influence of the foundation, the inertia
loads and the stiffness of the abutment when it moves away from the
backfill soil, are neglected, whilst it was found before that the response
of the abutment differs significantly under push or pull conditions [6]. In
other studies [83,122] the AFP was used to assess the importance of the
stiffness of the abutment under transverse earthquake excitations of
IABs, and it is recognised that estimating analytically the effect of the
IAB on the stress resultants of the superstructure is not an easy task,
because accurate methods to account for the stiffness of the abutment do
not exist. Later, Zhang and Makris [79] published research on instru­
mented IABs of small lengths, i.e. the Painter Street Overcrossing (PSO)
and the Meloland Road Overcrossing (MRO), and estimated their stiff­
nesses and compared those against previous studies, demonstrating the
variability of the stiffness and its strong dependency on the bridge and
soil. In the transverse direction, the response of IABs differs significantly
in comparison to its longitudinal responses, and research [146,147] has
highlighted that the excessive transverse displacements may be imposed
on bridge piers owing to the mobilisation of the embankments. Thus,
conventional modelling of IABs ignoring the bridge-embankment
interaction may potentially lead to significant underestimations of the
displacement demands, at least for short bridges examined in the papers
above.
Apart from the stiffness, also the damping and the mass of the
backfill soil influence drastically the response of IABs. One of the first to
discuss the backfill mass contribution to the seismic response of IABs
was Zhang and Makris [79,148]. They proposed the calculation of an
effective backfill length and based on this the contributing mass of the
soil was calculated for seismic excitations. The backfill mass was then
attached to the abutment, irrespective of the position of the latter, which
means that the backfill contributes with the same mass and influences
the dynamics of the bridge irrespective of whether the abutment moves
toward or away from the backfill soil. The same publications discussed
the damping ratios of the instrumented bridges and concluded that the
damping ratios of the IABs are much higher than the ones proposed by
the codes. Similarly, in a previous paper [82] it is stated that the iden­
tified modal damping ratio corresponding to the fundamental bending
mode of the studied bridge was nearly fivefold the recommended design
values, suggesting that IABs have great damping ratios along their lon­
gitudinal direction, especially when the vibration period is elongated e.
g. when the backfill soil yields. In chapter 29 of [2], it also mentioned
that the deformed backfill soil under seismic loads is very efficient in
dissipating the seismic energy, especially for bridges with total lengths
of less than 90 m with no hinge, no skew or small skew, i.e. with an angle
of skewness smaller than 15� . Damping ratios of the order of 20%–30%,
in modes which exhibited significant contribution of the abutment and
embankment soil, were also identified [149]. Similar conclusions may
be drawn for the transverse direction [83]. Additionally, it was found
that the larger the displacement of the IAB toward the backfill soil the
larger the damping ratio of the bridge [6], which can be explained by the
larger deflections and the extensive non-linearity of the backfill.
Regarding the dissipation of the dynamic SSI effects, this is recognised
by Caltrans section 2.1.5 (2013) [3] where the damping ratio of IABs is
ranging from 5% to 10%.
To account for the aforementioned particularities of IABs, their
modelling varies from simplified to very detailed 3D models, including
modelling of the foundation soil and the abutment with 2D or 3D cluster
elements, e.g. see Ref. [87,150,151]. As the backfill soil influences the
behaviour of IABs, modelling its mass, stiffness and dissipation capacity
is important, whilst neglecting either of the aforementioned properties
of the soil may lead to discrepancies from the reality and considerable
variation in estimated seismic demands [152]. Also, due to diverse
abutment types and properties of the backfill and foundation soil, a
universally accepted numerical modelling approach cannot exist. The
soil can be modelled with springs along the height and the width of the
abutment wall as per [85,153]. Other researches simulate the resistance
of the backfill soil by means of p-y curves [76,154] and additional
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
dashpots to model dissipation capacity or by means of complementary
macro-elements [155]. However, it is challenging to simulate reliably
the dynamic SSI in IABs with p-y curves. This is because modelling the
bridge-backfill interaction requires accounting for both the kinematic
and the inertia interaction, yet the kinematic part cannot be modelled
with p-y springs. Nevertheless, modelling assumptions are found to have
considerable effects on the calculated seismic response of IABs [156].
Different software platforms had been used for modelling IABs, such as
Abaqus [31,74,157,158], Flac [159] SAP2000 [111], Oasys [160],
Ansys [134] and OpenSees [87,92]. Further details regarding the
modelling techniques for IABs are given elsewhere [113,143,161]. Thus,
modelling the entire bridge with the backfills and the foundation is
essential for understanding the seismic behaviour and for evaluating the
post-earthquake performance of IABs. Τhe latter is related to the fact
that in IABs the permanent movements and rotations of bridge piers
after the earthquake are not negligible [162], thus the entire system of
the bridge-foundation-backfill is necessary to be modelled if capturing
residual deformations of the bridge and the backfill soil after major
earthquakes are of interest. Notably, under a resilience-based assess­
ment framework, the residual deflections of a bridge, which are not
easily or quickly restored, are of paramount importance and potentially
unacceptable, as they lower the resilience of the bridge due to increased
restoration times.
2.3. Earth pressures on IABs and backfill settlements
As it was mentioned before, the backfill soil is a great source of un­
certainty in the response of IABs during serviceability and earthquake
excitations. As a result of the interaction between the bridge and the
backfill, a number of problems arise including, most importantly, the
excessive vertical movement of the backfill soil, which corresponds to
almost 46% of IAB failure modes [93]. The vertical backfill deflection
can be up to 2% of the backfill height [138], and this deflection is either
settlement or heaving, presumably controlled and distributed by the
approach slab. Other secondary factors that lead to deflections of the
backfill soil are the deformations of the foundation soil and the poor
drainage and its densification [49]. Notably, any settlements of the
backfill soil are more pronounced in the vicinity of the abutment, i.e.
nearer to the abutment wall, whereas the backfill has been found to
exhibit heaving at larger distances from the abutment [24,74,135]. Also,
the magnitude and extent of settlements of the backfill has not been
examined extensively in the literature, because the adverse result of the
excessive settlement is the cracking of the approach elements, i.e.
damage or failure of a secondary bridge component, which is expend­
able and can be replaced. However, the soil pressures on the abutment
may alter significantly the response and the design of the abutment and
the end spans of the IAB, also shown in Fig. 2b. For example, high soil
pressures on the abutment will lead to greater abutment capacity re­
quirements, whilst the bending moment of the deck end-span will be
reduced, because the abutment counteracts these bending moments, i.e.
has a relieving effect, as per Fig. 2b4. Nevertheless, soil pressures fluc­
tuate continuously [151], hence meticulous calculation of earth pres­
sures is required throughout the life of the bridge for avoiding abutment
and deck failures. The deck design is even more challenging in case it
carries prestressing tendons, which require protection from corrosive
agents, and hence avoiding cracking is required, yet is challenging due
to the continuous variation of stresses.
Backfill pressure against the abutment is the number one unknown
in IABs. Most of the available design guidelines [46,163–166] amongst
others and a number of research papers and reports provide methods
and procedures for the estimation of the abutment soil pressures. These
are differentiated on the basis of parameters, e.g. the height and thick­
ness of the abutment, the friction between the abutment and the backfill,
the soil type, e.g. granular or cohesive, and properties and in particular
the unit weight, its angle of friction and density, for a granular soil, or
cohesion, for a cohesive soil, the movement of the abutment,
S.A. Mitoulis
(translational or rotational, the latter in terms of Δ/Н where Δ is the
displacement of the abutment top or bottom an H is the height of the
abutment), and the distribution of pressures along the height of the
abutment. Indicatively, Table 1 shows the maximum values of passive
soil pressures behind abutments Kp;t depending upon the angle of fric­
tion and the inclination of the abutment toward or away from the
backfill soil.
The hyperbolic lateral passive earth load-displacement relationship
curve was described before [167] as a function of the displacement of
the abutment toward the backfill. In Eurocodes the coefficients of hor­
izontal earth pressure Kp,h is related to the friction δ between the wall
and the soil and the angle of soil friction ϕ, whereas another chart
provides the evolution of passive earth pressure σp versus the ratio v/vp,
where v is the longitudinal displacement of the abutment toward the
backfill soil and vp is the displacement that causes the development of
passive soil pressures. However, the enhanced earth pressures due to
seismic movements of the bridge cannot be estimated based on the
above table. Also, Eurocode provides a table which contains the ratios of
abutment movement to abutment height to develop passive earth pres­
sure, and this is related to the kind of wall deflection, i.e. type of flexural
deflection, and the density of the backfill soil. For example, for dense soil
vp/h ¼ 0.1–0.2% of the wall height to develop passive earth pressure,
whereas three times larger movement is required (vp/h ¼ 0.45%) for the
development of passive earth pressures if the soil is loose. It is also worth
noticing that the Eurocodes will need amending with regard to their
approach and design guidelines for integral bridges, as the latter pre­
dominantly cover retaining walls. It has been, for example, admittedly
recognised that the code should provide general principles for enhanced
earth pressures and combinations with thermal, creep and shrinkage
movements in Eurocode 7 [163] and enhanced pressures due to traffic
surcharge [168]. Yet, clause 2.3.3 of Eurocode 2-1-1 [169] seems to
indirectly preclude IABs from applications, by requiring the mini­
misation of restraints to deformation by the provision of bearings or
joints. Generally, cracking can be utilised, under certain design con­
siderations, to reduce by 40%–60% -depending on the length-the re­
straint displacements and forces, yet the latter has not yet been
incorporated within any design guideline.
The lateral passive and active earth pressures coefficient were also
given [170] for a range of abutment rotations. The magnitude and dis­
tribution of earth pressures behind full-height integral abutments is also
specified in codes and papers [36,42,43,46,107,125], whereas the
modulus of subgrade reaction along the depth of abutment is given
[171], for abutment translations, rotations and combinations of the two.
A more advanced method utilising the Log-Spiral-Hyperbolic (LSH)
model had been proposed by Shamsabadi et al. [172], to predict the
passive lateral pressures of homogeneous backfills. Detailed background
on the earth pressures behind walls and in particular abutments is given
elsewhere [173].
For the earth pressures behind integral abutment under earth­
quake excitations, the simplified approach is to assume the passive
Table 1
Maximum (unfavourable) values [46] of Kp;t.
ϕ0 triax;d values of Kp;t
inclination of abutment face
Vertical forwards backwards
þ10 �
þ20 �
¡10� ¡20�
30 �
4.29 3.67 3.15 5.00 5.79
35� 5.88 4.86 4.02 7.09 8.49
40� 8.38 6.65 5.28 10.51 13.06
45� 12.57 9.51 7.20 16.52 21.45
50� 20.20 14.24 10.28 28.10 38.55
NOTE: Values of Kp;t are the horizontal component of Kp with δd/ϕ’ ¼ 0.5
calculated from the equations given in BS EN 1997–1:2004 Annex C using the
design values of the triaxial ϕ’.
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
earth pressures e.g. Refs. [7,174] or use the NCHRP 343 method [90],
which is essentially the earth pressures of the Mononobe-Okabe theory.
The latter was found to over-predict the experimental results [175]. In
the literature, it is also stated [24] that Rankine and Coulomb passive
pressure calculations are conservative for bridge abutment applications.
The main difference with the interaction during the bridge service is that
the resultant of the seismic earth pressures is usually higher up along the
height of the abutment, and that the seismic soil pressures are the result
of the abutment movements and rotations against the backfill, the
densification of the latter, and the inertia of the backfill soil [135].
However, based on tests conducted previously for peak ground accel­
erations of the order of 0.5 g, the inertia forces were found to be very
small, i.e. about 6% of the peak passive resistance.
2.4. Design codes and assessment of IABs for earthquake excitations
There is very limited knowledge of the seismic design of IABs. This
stems from a number of reasons, including the uncertainty and difficulty
in modelling the SSI between the bridge and the backfill soil. Another
reason is the requirement for immediate use of the bridge after major
earthquakes, assuming that an IAB will exhibit some sort of damage, as
opposed to their isolated counterparts, which are expected to remain
essentially elastic. The uncertainty in the response of IABs is related to
the inherent uncertainty of the backfill and foundation soil dynamic
properties and from the serviceability SSI, which continuously and
irreversibly alters the condition of the backfill soil [74], thus during the
earthquake excitation the condition of the backfill soil is not the one
assumed during the design phase. Secondarily, the use or design out of
wingwalls and approach slabs impose additional factors of uncertainty,
as these elements are part of the bridge earthquake resisting system if
they are linked to the abutment. Hence, it is not surprising that, based on
the current state of practice, and to the best of the author’s knowledge,
no design guidelines in the form of mandatory documents, have been
published for integral bridges. Perhaps, the only exception is the BA
42/96 [13], which has been largely superseded by the PD 6694–1 [46]
and other efforts within the UK [176]. Clause 9 in PD 6694–1 provides
the designers with realistic estimates of the pressures that will develop
with time behind integral abutments, which do not include the effects of
groundwater. The recommendations are based on the results of labora­
tory model tests, as explained before [177]. Yet, these design guidelines
do not cover the seismic design of IABs and their application is limited to
bridges up to 80 m long [178]. Among other European codes of practice
[164–166], Eurocode 8 Part 2 [179] requires that bridges with rigidly
connected abutments, which includes monolithic abutments, i.e. inte­
gral, and abutments connected to the deck through fixed bearings,
should be designed with a behaviour factor up to 1.5, unless at least 80%
of the abutment height is embedded within the soil, in which case a
behaviour factor of 1 is appropriate. This requirement is related to the
fact that bridges with well-embedded abutments rigidly connected to the
deck are believed to essentially follow the seismic motion of the ground -
also known as “locked-in” structures. Thus, they do not experience sig­
nificant amplification of the horizontal ground acceleration and they are
characterised by small periods i.e. T � 0.03 s. However, this cannot be
considered accurate for bridges of great lengths, as it is now understood
that the longer the bridge the smaller the influence of the abutment and
the backfill soil, as the mass, and dynamic resistance, in terms of stiffness
and dissipation capacity, are becoming less significant for bridges with a
large number of piers and greater deck masses [8]. This is also high­
lighted in the parametric study of the paper, the results of which are
presented in section 4.
Among other requirements of the in PD 6694–1, an upper value of
the design displacement of 40 mm to limit the damage of the soil or
embankment behind abutments rigidly connected to the deck is intro­
duced. Eurocode recognises that abutments rigidly connected to the
deck have a major contribution to the seismic resistance, both in the
longitudinal and in the transverse direction of the bridge. Upper and
S.A. Mitoulis
lower bound stiffness values can be used for the backfill soil for
modelling purposes, similarly to what is suggested by Bouassida et al.
[180]. The European code of practice also requires that the displacement
of IABs should be limited to 30 mm and 60 mm for bridge importance
classes III and II respectively, whereas no limitation exists for bridge
importance class I. In Caltrans and AASHTO-based bridge designs,
where the term diaphragm abutment is typically used for rigid
abutment-deck connections, the service load design method is
commonly used for abutment stability checks and the load factor
method is used for the design of abutment components. This is due to the
uncertainties in evaluating the soil response to static, cycling, dynamic
and seismic loading [2]. Typically, abutment spring displacement is
evaluated against an acceptable level of displacement of 0.2 ft (61 mm)
based on Caltrans full-scale study performed by UC Davis [144] and
UCLA [118]. The expectation, in terms of the abutment earthquake
resistance, is that the abutment should be able to sustain longitudinal
seismic forces by utilising the mobilised soil resistance and the shear
strength of its diaphragm [2]. The design requirements of the latter are
slightly different for abutments with conventional foundations, i.e.
shallow or deep, and also differ in the transverse direction.
In regard to other components that require sizing, the abutment
support width also referred to as seating width, which is based on the
length of the continuous bridge deck, the angle of skew and the average
height of the abutment and piers that support the deck are of interest
during the design process. Also, the design of the wingwall is similar to
the design of the retaining wall, considering live-load surcharge, i.e. the
equivalent soil thickness to account for additional traffic loads. Other
design aspects include the drainage of the backfill soil, which is
essential in reducing the possible build-up of hydrostatic pressure, to
control erosion of the roadway embankment and to reduce the possi­
bility of soil liquefaction during an earthquake, and the abutment slope
protection, to avoid washing out of the bridge abutment support soil
during floods.
The constraints imposed by the rigid abutment-deck connection also
influence the design of the prestressing of IAB decks. Generally, pre­
stressing is efficient when the fluctuation of the loads and hence the
stresses on the deck is relatively small. The smaller the variation of
stresses, the larger the eccentricities of the tendons that can be utilised
and hence the smaller number of tendons needed, leading to cost-
effective designs. The opposite is valid when the uncertainty with re­
gard to stresses increases, e.g. when the abutment resistance fluctuates.
Hence, in IABs where the stress state within the deck is strongly
dependent on the soil properties, the prestressing needs are typically
higher. Neither the normal at-rest pressure behind abutments nor the
resistance to passive movements are ever very accurately known, and
this is another reason that leads to the use of upper and lower bounds
soil properties [40,160]. Thus, backfill resistance should not be
neglected [102] in the design of IAB prestressing. Notably, the cracking
of the IAB decks is one of the most frequent damages in IABs [93], and
this is not a permissible for prestressed concrete decks due to the
accelerated corrosion that may reduce their lifespan.
The seismic vulnerability of IABs is also another area that has been
addressed scarcely by international literature, mainly looking into spe­
cific bridges. Indicatively, Jeon et al. [95,181] have dealt with the
seismic fragility of curved multi-frame concrete box girder bridges with
in-span hinges, which revealed that horizontal curvature and abutment
skew have a relatively minimal influence on the system fragility. The
comparison between integral and jointed bridges was performed before
[15] to identify that IABs perform consistently better from a seismic
perspective than the jointed bridges, yet they are more vulnerable to
seismic forces in the transverse direction. Also, it was found that IAB
vulnerability increases with an increase in bridge length and decreases
with an increase in column height. Under different research objectives
[182], it was found that omitting the participating mass of the
embankment results in underestimated demands for shorter bridges,
which is an indication that the mass of the backfill soil may exacerbate
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
the seismic load effects acting on the bridge, whereas the latter also
leads to an increased vulnerability of the abutment, which is expected to
be the first structural component to fail, and the backfill the first
non-structural component to deteriorate during earthquakes. The global
engineering demand parameter for a seismically activated backfill is
given by Stefanidou and Kappos [183] based on the height of the
abutment, yet the latter research refers to seat-type abutments. With
regard to the fragility of IABs to multiple effects, natural stressors and
hazards, this seems to have been examined completely separately from
the seismic performance, except the case of the reinforcement corrosion
in combination with seismic effects in IABs. The latter has been exam­
ined initially in a study [184], where columns were found to be the most
sensitive component during bridge ageing and dominate the system
seismic fragility, whilst in Ref. [185] a model that simulates the buckling
of longitudinal reinforcement under cyclic loading and the impact of
corrosion on buckling strength was used and it was again found that
corrosion drastically increases the vulnerability of IABs. A different
perspective is elsewhere [162], where the seismic fragility of bridges is
assessed on the basis of backfill permanent deflections (settlement or
heaving) and it is shown that different thresholds of engineering demand
parameters might be appropriate for road and railway bridges. It is by
now well established that the performance and vulnerability of bridges
generally, and in particular IABs is dependent on the sequence of effects,
natural stressors and hazards. Hence, it is strongly believed that exam­
ining the seismic response of IABs without considering the preceding
deterioration of the backfill and the bridge due to e.g. corrosion or
hydraulic-related actions such as scour and debris accumulation, may
result in unsafe and unrealistic results.
3. Novel designs of earthquake resistant IABs
Innovative designs of the abutment and the backfill soil and
emerging materials have been proposed in the international literature to
extend the length limits of IABs [186], in earthquake-prone areas [187],
and also for IABs in regions where serviceability is the main concern, i.e.
large movements due to thermal effects, creep and shrinkage. England
[187] invented a displacement compensation unit to maintain the
backfill stability and prevent granular flow within. Horvath et al. [188]
and Po €tzl et al. [189] tested integral abutments and used expanded
polystyrene (EPS) layers to absorb the displacements of the abutment
and minimise the backfill disturbance. However, the EPS exhibits per­
manent deformations, hence the backfill soil is not prevented from
becoming wedged behind the abutment [190]. Elastic inclusions,
interjected between the abutment and the backfill, were found to reduce
the soil pressures towards the abutment [27,61,191]. Lightweight
hybrid backfills, e.g. soil mixed with tyre-derived aggregates, was used
within backfills [192–195] to reduce their settlements. Loose soil has
been employed by Arsoy et al. [57], as a means to enhance the durability
of the piles of stub-type abutments against repetitive cyclic loads. The
use of hybrid backfills is also suggested by the EPA [196], the UNEP
[197] and the ASTM D6270-08 [198], as a measure to decrease the soil
pressures on retaining walls. It is underlined though that the design of
integral abutments is more demanding than the design of retaining
walls, as the abutments must sustain the movements of the expanding
and contracting deck. The application of waste elastic materials, e.g.
from tyres, was for the first time introduced in Ref. [135,199] as an
elastic inclusion or mixed with soil in the backfill. The advantage of
these isolators made of waste materials (i.e. tyres) is that their proper­
ties, e.g. compressibility, elasticity, stiffness and damping, can be engi­
neered. Also, isolated IABs has been very recently introduced in the
Bridge Design Manual of the Washington State Department [200].
Other innovative structural designs that can be utilised to maximise
the length of IABs is to allow the controlled cracking of the abutment,
the piles and/or the piers [66]. This means that rebars of smaller
diameter and spacing should be used to both control the crack width and
distribute evenly the cracks along the structural components. An
S.A. Mitoulis
example of such design is the Isola della Scala bridge, which utilised a
closed-box abutment. The bridge is expected to be able to receive very
large displacements, of the order of 67.5 mm, and to develop controlled
cracking and plastic hinges under SLS design situations. The selected
positions of potential plastic hinges are the connection between the
abutment and the deck, the top of the abutment and pier piles and the
pier base [129]. Among others, Dicleli et al. [100,132,201] has
researched the maximum length for continuous IABs with stub-type
abutments on steel piles, whilst endeavoured to minimise the effect of
pile damage considering different sand densities, variable pile size and
orientation, abutment size and backfill compaction level. Generally,
steel H-piles are capable of sustaining inelastic strains in this range
without local buckling or loss of axial load carrying capacity, and this
may be utilised as a means to increase the length of IABs [202].
4. Backfill soil behaviour in IAB seismic design: beneficial or
detrimental?
4.1. The competing factors in IAB seismic response
The seismic response of IABs is significantly affected by the bridge-
backfill interaction, irrespective of the intensity of the earthquake or
the condition of the bridge and the backfill soil. To date, no agreement
has been reached in the international literature with regard to the
consequences of this interaction. Some researchers are in support of the
rationale that the response of IABs is dictated by the seismic motion
exerted on the abutment by the backfill soil [79,148]. Logically, this is
likely to be valid if the backfill is voluminous, i.e. has a large inertia
mass, which contributes to the mass of the bridge, and the bridge is
relatively short and thus has a relatively small mass. Other cases, where
the backfill might be dictating the IAB response, is when the abutment is
seating and/or founded on a flexible backfill, thus the amplified earth­
quake excitation is directly exerted on the bridge through the abutment,
more likely to be the case in IABs with stub and piled abutments. On the
contrary, other studies concluded that the backfill essentially follows the
bridge movements, which is more likely to be the case in long-span IABs,
with full-height abutments and backfills resting on the bridge abutments
[1,8], in which case the bridge is logically expected to dominate the
response of the bridge-backfill system and thus dictating the movement
of the backfill.
The aforementioned clashing opinions indicate a conceptual gap in
IAB seismic design and assessment and hence warrant further in­
vestigations. It is clear that the consequences of this interaction are
dependent on a number of factors, such as the type of the backfill soil,
the type and height of the abutment, the total length of the bridge, the
bridge characteristics, e.g. stiffness and damping, among others. There
are many competing factors, which may lead to aggravated or improved
IAB responses, among which the additional mass of the backfill soil, the
additional input motion exerted to the bridge from the abutment foun­
dation and the retained backfill soil, the dissipation capacity and stiff­
ness of the abutment and the backfill soil, were identified, based on the
literature review, as the predominant ones. Hence, it is considered to be
important to know if it is safer to perform the seismic analysis and design
of IABs disregarding the backfill soil, e.g. considering it as a second line
of defense, or if it is safer to model the backfill soil. With the second
approach, the backfill should be modelled accounting for its stiffness,
mass and dissipation capacity. As such, the backfill is expected to act as an
additional support and/or restraint to the bridge, offering additional
dissipation to the system, whilst increasing the mass of the seismically
oscillating bridge.
It is the author’s opinion that the aforementioned discordance in IAB
seismic design leads to different modelling approaches and diverse
design guidelines. Another example of the uncertainty around the sig­
nificance of the backfill soil in IAB design is the fact that the designer
must assume stiffness and a damping ratio corresponding to the IABs-
backfill system for global analysis, i.e. for the dynamic analysis of the
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
entire bridge, whereas the backfill soil pressures and settlements are
required for local analyses purposes, i.e. for designing the abutment, the
deck prestressing, the backfill soil, the wingwalls and the approach
slabs. As a result, it is unclear in which cases the existence of the backfill
may lead to safer designs or underestimations of responses and thus to
under-designs, as the backfill properties (stiffness, mass, dissipation) are
either beneficial or detrimental factors in IAB seismic response.
4.2. Parametric study
In this framework and in recognition of the aforementioned gaps in
knowledge, this paper also researched the response of frame IABs with
full-height and stub-type piled integral abutments, using detailed nu­
merical models in FEM code Plaxis. A representative 3-span IAB
described in Refs. [135] is used as a benchmark and used to generate a
number of parametrised models. The parametric analyses aim at iden­
tifying the influence of the following parameters, which were found to
be the predominant factors influencing the seismic response of IABs,
based on the literature review conducted in this paper and engineering
judgement: (a) the total length of continuous deck IABs; (b) the stiffness
of the bridge, adjusted through the stiffness of the piers; (c) the type of
the abutment, i.e. full height diaphragm or stub-type piled abutment,
and the height of the abutment; (d) the type of backfill soil; and (e) the
seismic input motion characteristics and peak ground acceleration
(PGA). It is recognised that the above list of parameters is not exhaustive
and that there is a number of other factors that may affect the seismic
performance of IABs, such as the bridge type, damping, mass, the
foundation soil, the skewness and curvature in-plane, among others. Yet,
it is believed that the parameters analysed herein and results are a sound
basis for capturing the IAB response tendencies, at least for global
analysis and design purposes and enable an understanding of how safe
or unsafe it is to neglect the abutment-bridge interaction in IAB seismic
design. Local effects, e.g. soil pressures and settlements are discussed
extensively in previous publications and hence are not covered by this
paper.
For the research, one, two and three-span IABs were analysed of total
length 33.5, 67.0 and 101.5 m respectively. The bridges are shown in
Fig. 3. The 3-span bridge geometry and model was described in detail
before [150,151]. The other two models, i.e. the single-span and
two-span bridges, were generated based on the first one. The clearance
of the bridge models is 8.0 m and the total height of the pier is 10.5 m.
The foundation depth from the ground surface to the bottom of the
footing is 2.5 m. All the checks of the foundations for the abutment and
the pier are given elsewhere [74,135]. Two different pier cross sec­
tions, i.e., one wall-type pier 1.0 x 4.5 m and one circular pier with a
diameter of 1.4 m; three abutment heights the base model abutment
was 8.0 m high, whilst the other two were 5.5 m and 3.5 m, i.e.,
approximately 2/3 and 1/3 of the base model; two different abutment
types, i.e. full-height and stub-type piled abutment, shown in Fig. 4, two
different backfills, i.e. one flexible multilayer fill (MLF) and one stiffer
and diverse seismic motions, shown in Fig. 5, and three levels of peak
ground acceleration i.e. 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 g were analysed. Table 2 il­
lustrates the models that were analysed and described above. The
models include the reference model (REF), and models that were ana­
lysed with (WF) and without (NF) the backfill soil, i.e. the single-span
(1S/WF & 1S/NF) and two-span (2S/WF & 2S/NF) bridge, the bridge
models with 3.5 m (REF/3.5m-WF & REF/3.5m-NF) and 5.5 m
(REF/5.5m-WF & REF/5.5m-NF) high abutments, the models with the
stub-type abutment (REF/ST-WF & REF/ST-NF), the multi-layer fill
model (REF/MLF), and another two models with more flexible ERS, i.e.
with flexible piers (REF/FP-WF & REF/FP-NF). Further evidence with
regard to the influence of the backfill soil on the seismic response of IABs
was sought by analysing hypothetical systems of massless backfill
soils, and in particular for the bridges with 1, 2 and 3 spans. In these
analyses, no mass was assigned to the backfill soil, yet the soil main­
tained its stiffness and damping capabilities, due to its yielding and
S.A. Mitoulis
Fig. 3. The geometries of the one, two and three-span (REF) IABs models.
Fig. 4. Elevation of the abutments analysed with heights ranging from 3.5 m to 8.0 m and the stub-type abutment, cross section of the cast-in-situ box girder deck
and the cross sections of the piers, stiff (left) and flexible (right).
interaction effects. These analyses provided further evidence with re­
gard to the effect of the backfill mass on the dynamic response of IABs. In
total, more than 300 time history analyses were conducted in Plaxis 2D
to define potential tendencies with regard to the bridge response in the
longitudinal direction, which is the one that is affected most by
serviceability SSI effects.
4.3. Results
The performance of the bridge and the assessment of the beneficial or
detrimental presence of the backfill soil into IAB seismic design was
evaluated on the basis of (a) the alteration in the period of the IAB; (b)
the bending moments and shear forces of the bridge deck supports,
above the abutments and piers, and at mid-spans, as shown in Fig. 6, and
(c) the pier drifts. The resultants of the IABs described in a), b) and c)
above are then compared against the ones of the reference IAB and to the
models for which the backfill soil was not included. Ratios are then
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
provided in tables and indicative graphs in an effort to identify trends
with regard to the existence of the backfill soil, as a means to conclude
whether the backfill soil has a beneficial or adverse effect on the bridge
seismic resultants.
4.3.1. Periods
The periods of the IAB models vary for the different seismic input
motions and levels of PGA, bridge lengths, piers cross sections, abutment
heights and types and backfill types. The periods of longer IABs, e.g. see
the REF three-span bridge, are greater and this is evident in the bridge
models, where the backfill soil was precluded from the analyses, i.e. the
NF models. For example, the 1-span, 2-span and 3-span IABs without fill
(NF) were found to have periods of 0.25s, 0.30s, and 0.38s corre­
spondingly, yet the models in which the backfill soil was considered had
periods close to 0.29s, including the period of the REF bridge (see
Table 2) which also had a period of 0.29 s. The periods of 1-span, 2-span
and 3-span IABs with massless fill were found to be 0.24s, 0.28s and
S.A. Mitoulis Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183

0.40s–0.45s, being 6% and 14% higher than the REF bridge, for the case
where the backfill soil is neglected, i.e. the NF models. Yet, similarly to
the previous observations, the periods of the IAB models with the
backfill soil (WF) were not very different from the ones observed above
(i.e. ~0.29s), establishing the dominant role of the backfill soil in the
IAB frequencies. Also, the periods of IABs was found to increase for
higher PGAs and this is attributed to the fact that the backfill soil has
smaller stiffness for larger seismic displacements of the abutment to­
ward it, as it yields during the seismic motion. More specifically, there
has been an increase in the period in the range of 1%–3.6% when the
peak ground acceleration was increased from 0.2 g to 0.6 g, establishing
an increase in the level of the ground yielding and non-linear behaviour
at higher intensities of earthquake excitations. This non-linearity is
essentially the non-linearity of the foundation and backfill soil and
contains no structural non-linearities in this case. The structural system
of the IAB, i.e.
The deck, abutments and piers, was considered to remain essentially
elastic, whilst the potential cracking of the piers and abutments was
Fig. 5. The response spectra of the five seismic motions and the elastic response considered by taking into account the effective stiffness of these com­
spectrum of Eurocode 8-1 soil A spectrum for a PGA of 0.4 g. ponents, as per Eurocode 8–2 [179].
Also, comparisons between the periods of the IAB with and without
the backfill were conducted, i.e. the IAB with the backfill soil against
Table 2
Analysis model coding.
the bare IAB frame. It seems that in single-span IABs the period reduced
by approximately 16%, from 0.29s for the 1S/WF to 0.25s for the 1S/NF,
model including without fill description
when the backfill soil was not considered in the analysis. This is believed
designation backfill (With (No Fill -
Fill - WF) NF) to be evidence that the mass of the backfill soil and the input motion that
is exerted on the bridge from the backfill is the dominant bridge
reference REF/WF REF/NF base reference model, 3-span
model bridge, abutment height 8.0 m
response parameter rather than the stiffness of the backfill soil, at least
(REF) for the short span IABs. The latter conclusion is related to the fact that if
single-span 1S/WF 1S/NF 1-span bridge, abutment the stiffness of backfill soil was dominating the IAB response, then the
bridge height 8.0 m expectation would be for the bridge to become more flexible when the
two-span 2S/WF 2S/NF 2-span bridge, abutment
backfill soil is neglected, and thus lead to an increase its period. How­
bridge height 8.0 m
3.5m REF/3.5m-WF REF/3.5m- 3-span bridge, abutment ever, the period is reduced, i.e. the mass was reduced. This evidence is
abutment NF height 3.5 m further strengthened by the analysis of the 1S/WF massless backfill
height system which resulted in a period of 0.24 s, i.e. smaller than the period of
5.5m REF/5.5m-WF REF/5.5m- 3-span bridge, abutment the IAB with the backfill soil. The periods of the 2S/WF and 2S/NF are
abutment NF height 5.5 m
height
similar indicating that for the 2-span bridge the additional mass of the
Stub-type REF/ST-WF REF/ST-NF 3-span bridge, stub-type fill is breaking even with the increase in the stiffness of the bridge, thus
abutment abutment with piles not affecting the period of the bridge. The opposite is valid for longer
multi-layer REF/MLF REF/NF the backfill soil is softer bridges, where for example the REF/WF has an almost 31% smaller
fill model (same as i.e. GMLF�0.5.GREF
period (0.38 s) than the REF/NF model (0.29 s), which is evidence that
above)
flexible pier REF/FP-WF REF/FP-NF 3-span bridge, 1.4 m pier the stiffness of the backfill soil, in that case, is the dominant bridge
bridge diameter (almost 50% of the response parameter rather than the mass of the backfill soil, at least in
stiffness of the REF bridge) longer IABs. Thus, the opposite is valid for longer IABs, as longer IABs
become increasingly more flexible when the backfill soil is neglected, an
indication that the mass of the backfill becomes less significant.

4.3.2. Load effects

Fig. 6. The critical positions at which the seismic resultants were recorded.
0.32s. By comparing the periods of the WF against the periods of the NF
models it can be extracted that the backfill soil influences strongly the
period of IABs and indeed the backfill soil mass plays an important role.
Similarly, the periods of the models with different abutment heights, i.
e. 3.5 m, 5.5 m and 8.0 m, had periods 0.25s, 0.32s and 0.38s corre­
spondingly when the backfill is neglected, whereas the periods were
0.30s, 0.31s and 0.32s for the same models with fill (WF). The periods of
the flexible bridge, i.e. with the circular pier section with a diameter of
1.4 m, and the bridge with the stub-type abutment were in the range of
Fig. 6 shows the positions at which the bending moments and the
shear forces were recorded for all model IABs that were analysed. The
design of the foundations, the abutments, the piers and the deck define
largely the cost of the entire system. The design of these structural
components is also dependent on the shear forces and bending moments
as well as on a number of other technical and non-technical factors. For
the scope of this paper, it was considered that the bending moments and
shear forces of the deck and the drifts of the piers are good indicators of
the overall bridge performance and reliable means for understanding the
potential advantages or disadvantages of the presence of the backfill on
the seismic design of IABs.
Comparing the bending moments of the base models REF/WF and
REF/NF lead to the conclusion that the backfill soil has a beneficial ef­
fect on the behaviour of the bridge under earthquake excitations, and
this was found to be consistent in most model IABs studied in this paper.
The following results compare the bending moments due to earthquake
excitations against the moments due to vertical loads between the WF
and NF models, thus any reported increases or reductions are against the

12
S.A. Mitoulis
stress resultants estimated for the service loads. The average bending
moment at the pier had increased by up to 17% when no backfill (NF)
was considered as opposed to 12% when backfill was modelled (WF),
that is a 5% higher bending moment when the fill is neglected. The
average shear force at the abutment indicated backfill being beneficial
as shear forces increased by 2% in REF/WF in comparison to 8% when
backfill is neglected, i.e. in the REF/NF model. However, the other
critical points do not suggest a benefit or worsening of behaviour as
definitively with only a 1% or 2% difference in average shear forces.
Nevertheless, it is underlined that the shear design of piers rigidly
connected to the deck in earthquake resistant bridges is not dependent
on the shear forces, as the bending moment capacities at bottom and top
of the pier define the capacity design shears, (see capacity design in
Eurocode 2 [169]). Thus, the REF/WF would require less flexural and
hence less shear reinforcement, which is believed to be evidence that the
existence of the backfill soil has a relieving effect on IABs.
Comparing the 5.5m abutment models, i.e. the REF/5.5-WF against
the REF/5.5-NF, further establishes the beneficial effect of the backfill
soil. The bending moments and shear forces due to the seismic combi­
nation were found to be at least 15% smaller in the model that included
the backfill soil (WF) in comparison to the model where the fill was
neglected (NF), evidence that backfill soil has aided the bridge and
relieved demand on the structural elements. The 3.5m abutment
models REF/3.5-WF and REF/3.5-NF also show the backfill is beneficial
on the bridge behaviour as again all the critical sections were found to
have lower shear forces and bending moments when backfill is present.
When fill is present, the midspan of the IAB had a mean increase of
bending moments of 23%, when seismic loads were considered, whereas
without fill there is a 36% increase in bending moment at the midspan,
thus the REF/3.5-WF developed up to 9% smaller bending moments. It is
reminded that the increases here are against the resultants due to the
vertical loads of the bridge i.e. the self-weight and the factored traffic
loads.
When comparing the 2-span bridge models 2S/WF and 2S/NF, the
results indicate the backfill has again a beneficial effect. With fill, the
average midspan and abutment moments increased by 8% and 5%
respectively. Without backfill the average midspan and abutment mo­
ments increased by 17% and 21% correspondingly. Overall, the bending
moments of the 2S/WF were up to 13% smaller when the backfill was
considered. The single-span models 1S/WF and 1S/NF also indicate a
beneficial role of the backfill, as the average midspan moment with fill
showed a 1% increase whereas without backfill there a 5% increase was
calculated. It is also evidenced that the beneficial effect of the backfill
soil reduces when the length of the bridge reduces. The latter is believed
to be related to the fact that the backfill soil mass becomes the dominant
dynamic property of the backfill in shorter IAB response, and this
additional inertia mass counterbalances the beneficial restraining effect
of the fill. The results for the flexible bridge systems, i.e. the stub type
abutment REF/ST and the flexible pier model REF/FP, were inconclu­
sive with regard to the research question as it seems that the bending
moments were similar whether the backfill was present or neglected
during the analysis. For the REF/ST, the bending moments and shear
forces were found to be higher in the bridge with the fill, an indication
that the backfill might be less beneficial or even detrimental in flexible
IAB configurations, in combination with a more flexible abutment that is
incapable of carrying large bending moments, thus the deck transfers
higher loads onto the piers.
Among the resultants that were recorded, the drift values (in mm/m)
were also estimated by taking the differential displacement of the pier
top and bottom divided by the height of pier/abutment. The results refer
to the analyses of the models subjected to ground motions corresponding
to a PGA of 0.6 g. The results are clearly in favour of the case with the fill
(WF) against the cases where the fill was neglected (NF). In all cases
examined herein, the presence of the backfill soil reduced drastically the
pier and abutment drifts of the IAB models. Specifically, the drifts of the
WF models were 37%, 20% and 12% smaller than the drifts of the
13
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
models without fills (NF), when the abutment height was 8.0 m, 5.5 m
and 3.5 m correspondingly. This shows that the backfill soil reduces
significantly the drifts of the piers and the smaller the height of the
abutment the smaller this beneficial effect. The results after comparing
the 3-span (REF), 2-span and 1-span model drifts showed that the
smaller the length of the bridge the greater the efficiency of the
abutment in reducing the drifts. Specifically, the drifts of the REF 3-span
bridge (REF/WF) were reduced by 37% in comparison to the REF/NF
model, whereas the reductions were 46% and 55% for the 2-span and 1-
span bridge. Similarly, the flexible pier model (REF/FP-WF) and the
stub-type abutment model (REF/ST-WF) had up to 35% and 33%
smaller drift values when the backfill was considered, in comparison to
the same bridge models without the fill. Thus, it is extracted that the
presence of the backfill soil is very beneficial for the design of the
substructures.
5. Conclusions
This review paper sheds light on the seismic response of Integral
Abutment Bridges (IABs), which are popular in transport infrastructure,
yet their design becomes increasingly challenging because current
design guidelines and new knowledge on soil-structure interaction pose
a number of barriers in practice. Despite these challenges, it is recog­
nised that there is a strong incentive and great opportunities emerging,
in support of the wide application of IABs, on the basis of bridge owners’
and stakeholders’ increasing demands in maintenance-free and resilient
infrastructure. Thus, there is a great prospect in embracing IAB concepts
in future codes, guidelines and bridge projects. It is also the author’s
belief that IABs should be equipped with state-of-the-art materials and
techniques, e.g. bridge-backfill isolation layers, to maximise their effi­
ciency, whilst controlling the consequences of the serviceability and
seismic SSI in IABs.
One of the striking findings of this review is the differentiation in the
design practices in IABs analysis and design, the diversity of the struc­
tural components involved, e.g. abutment types, use or exclusion of
wingwalls and approach slabs, synthesis of backfill soil, and the diverse
limits for the maximum allowable lengths, skewness and curvature in
IABs. Also, there is lack of research for guiding future efficient IAB de­
signs, even for making important decisions, e.g. the type and geometry
of the abutment, the type of the backfill soil and, potentially, guidance
for protecting the abutments and backfills against the most common
damaging factors of excessive soil pressures, ratcheting effect and set­
tlements. This goes together with an international disagreement with
regard to the terminology. For instance, in the USA the use of full-height
rigid abutments result in frame bridges as opposed to integral bridges,
whereas in European practice IAB is any bridge where a rigid connection
between the abutment and the deck exists.
In regard to the behaviour of IABs under serviceability and ultimate
design situations, the latter with an emphasis on seismic considerations,
it is understood that serviceability is partially covered by the codes and
by extensive laboratory, scaled abutment and on-site IAB testing. The
seismic response and design of IABs is an open area for research, and it
has been so for many years. On the basis of the importance of the
serviceability SSI in IABs, it is believed that it is important to consider
potential alterations of the IAB dynamic system during its service to
accurately predict its seismic response and provide realistic designs.
With regard to other properties of IABs, i.e. the stiffness, the mass and
the dissipation capacity, these need to be taken into account, yet there is
a great uncertainty especially in estimating the participating mass of the
backfill soil and the dissipation capacity, which depends on the non-
linear response of the backfill and the dynamic contact of the abut­
ment on the backfill soil, among others. In view of the lack of reliable
simplified models, the analysis of the entire IAB with the backfill soil and
the foundation is considered to be essential for global analysis, espe­
cially when the bridge is of high importance. For local analysis, i.e. the
design of the abutment for enhanced soil pressures and design of the end
S.A. Mitoulis
deck spans, the use of detailed FE is recommended as currently available
methods cover the design of retaining walls, thus the magnitude, nature
and point of application of the soil pressure resultants are not repre­
sentative for IABs.
The parametric study that was conducted in the framework of this
paper aiming at opining with regard to the beneficial or detrimental role
of the backfill soil on IAB seismic responses examined the following
parameters: a) length of the IAB; (b) the stiffness of the bridge; (c) the
type and height of the abutment; (d) the backfill soil and (e) the PGA.
The results with regard to periods provided evidence that the smaller the
length of the bridge the more dominant the role of the backfill soil mass
is in defining the dynamic response of the bridge. In longer IABs the
backfill soil mass influence is less significant, whilst the stiffness and
dissipation capacity of the fill takeover to dominate the seismic
response. As a result, the period of the bridge would be underestimated
in short-span IABs and overestimated in long IABs if the backfill soil is
neglected during the seismic analysis.
With regard to the bending moments and shear actions of the IAB
decks, it was found that the backfill soil has a beneficial effect on the
behaviour of IABs under earthquake excitations in all the models studied
herein. Bending moments were found to be between 5% and 15%
smaller in all IAB decks with fill in comparison to the models where the
fill was not taken into account. Thus, accounting for the contribution of
the backfill soil can potentially lead to less flexural and shear re­
inforcements, evidence that the existence of the backfill soil has a
relieving effect on IABs. The highest bending moment reductions were
observed at short abutments and in longer IABs. The bridge-backfill
interaction may be less beneficial or even detrimental in flexible IAB
configurations, in which cases a more flexible abutment is incapable of
carrying large bending moments, thus deck is expected to distribute the
loads to the piers. Also, the drifts of the piers and abutments were
drastically reduced in all IAB models analysed herein, again strong ev­
idence of the fact that the backfill soil has a relieving effect on the stress
resultants of IABs.
It is believed that the analysis, design and construction of IABs is a
challenging engineering endeavour. Yet, it strongly evidenced in the
international literature that the additional effort for the application of
IABs will very quickly return its investment, due to the savings in
maintenance and the high robustness and hence resilience of IABs.
Hence, it is essential to provide guidelines for the application of IABs and
promote efficient designs of IABs in earthquake-prone areas.
Declaration of competing interest
The author declares that he has no known competing financial in­
terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Sotirios Argyroudis, currently Marie Skło­
dowska-Curie Fellow, for his support and feedback. Also, the work of
many students involved in research projects is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106183.
References
[1] Mitoulis SA. Design of earthquake resistant bridges accounting for the
contribution of the abutment and the backfill soil. PhD Thesis. Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki; 2008.
[2] Chen W-F, Duan L. Bridge engineering handbook. second ed. CRC Press; 2014.
[3] Caltrans. Seismic design criteria. SDC 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Transportation; 2013.
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
[4] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).
Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. second ed. Washington, DC,
USA: AASHTO; 2011.
[5] Mitoulis SA, Tegos IA, Stylianidis K-C. Cost-effectiveness related to the
earthquake resisting system of multi-span bridges. Eng Struct 2010;32(9):
2658–71.
[6] Mitoulis S, Argyroudis S, Kowalsky M. Evaluation of the stiffness and damping of
abutments to extend direct displacement-based design to the design of integral
bridges. In: COMPDYN 2015, 5th international conference on computational
methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; May 2015. p. 25–7
[Crete].
[7] Transportation Research Board. Comprehensive specification for the seismic
design of bridges. Natl Cooper Highw Res Progr Rep 2002;472.
[8] Mitoulis SA. Seismic design of bridges with the participation of seat-type
abutments. Eng Struct 2012;44:222–33.
[9] Arockiasamy M, Butrieng N, Sivakumar M. State-of-the-art of integral abutment
bridges: design and practice. J Bridge Eng 2004 Sep;9(5):497–506.
[10] EN 1991-1-5, Eurocode 1: actions on structures-Part 1.5. General actions-Thermal
actions; 2003.
[11] Kim WS, Laman JA, Park JY. Reliability-based design of prestressed concrete
girders in integral abutment bridges for thermal effects. Struct Eng Mech 2014
Jan 1;50(3):305–22.
[12] Hassiotis S. Evaluation of integral abutments final report. FHWA-NJ-2005-025.
United States: New Jersey Department of Transportation, Division of Research
and Technology; 2006. Federal Highway Administration.
[13] HA (Highways Agency). BA 42/96 design manual for roads and bridges. In:
Highway structures, approval procedures and general design, sect. 3 general
design, Part 12 amendment No. 1, the design of integral bridges, vol. 1. Guildford,
UK: HA; 2003.
[14] Erhan S, Dicleli M. Comparative assessment of the seismic performance of
integral and conventional bridges with respect to the differences at the
abutments. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(2):653–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-014-9635-8.
[15] Choine MN, O’Connor AJ, Padgett JE. Comparison between the seismic
performance of integral and jointed concrete bridges. J Earthq Eng 2015;19(1):
172–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.946163.
[16] Arenas AE, Filz GM, Cousins TE. Thermal response of integral abutment bridges
with mechanically stabilized earth walls. Final Rep VCTIR 2013;13-R7. Virginia
Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, VA.
[17] Xie Y, Zheng Q, Yang CS, Zhang W, DesRoches R, Padgett JE, Taciroglu E.
Probabilistic models of abutment backfills for regional seismic assessment of
highway bridges in California. Eng Struct 2019;180:452–67.
[18] Lam IP, Martin G. Seismic design of highway foundations: volume II, design
procedures. McLean, VA, USA: FHWA Research and Development Technology;
1986. p. 122–67. Report FHWA/RD-86.
[19] Waldin J, Jennings J, Routledge P. Critically damaged bridges and concepts for
earthquake recovery. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand society for earthquake
engineering annual conference; 2012. p. 1–8.
[20] Marsh ML, Buckle IG, Kavazanjian E. LRFD seismic analysis and design of bridges
(reference manual). FHWA NHI-15-004. Federal Highway Administration; 2014.
[21] Mitoulis SA, Tegos IA, Stylianidis K-C. A new scheme for the seismic retrofit of
multi-span simply supported (MSSS) bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2013;9(7):
719–32.
[22] Zordan T, Briseghella B. Attainment of an integral abutment bridge through the
refurbishment of a simply supported structure. Struct Eng Int 2007 Aug 1;17(3):
228–34.
[23] Dhar S, Dasgupta K. Seismic soil structure interaction for integral abutment
bridges: a review. Transport Infrastruct Geotechnol 2019:1–9.
[24] Arsoy S, Barker RM, Duncan JM. The behavior of integral abutment bridges.
VTRC 00-CR3. Charlottesville, USA: Virginia Transportation Research Council;
1999.
[25] Hassiotis S, Khodair Y, Roman E, Dehne Y. Evaluation of integral abutments. Final
report, FHWA-NJ-2005-025. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Highway
Administration; 2006.
[26] Efretuei EO. Thermal impact on soil-structure interaction for integral bridges. UK:
Ph.D, University of Leeds; 2013.
[27] Feldmann M, Naumes J, Pak D, Veljkovic M, Nilsson M, Eriksen J, Collin P,
Kerokoski O, Petursson H, Verstraete M, Vroomen C, Haller M, Hechler O,
Popa N. Economic and durable design of composite bridges with integral
abutments. In: Final report. European commission. Research fund for coal and
steel. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. https://doi.
org/10.2777/91014. EUR 24224.
[28] Springman SM, Norrish ARM, Ng CWW. Cyclic loading of sand behind integral
bridge abutments. TRL (Transport Res Labo) Rep 1996;146.
[29] Ooi PS, Lin X, Hamada HS. Field behavior of an integral abutment bridge
supported on drilled shafts. J Bridge Eng 2010;15(1):4–18. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000036.
[30] Arsoy S, Barker RM, Duncan JM. Τhe behavior of integral abutment bridges. Final
contract report. Virginia, USA: Virginia Transportation Research Council. FHWA/
VTRC 00-CR3; 1999.
[31] Shah BR, Peric D, Esmaeily A. Effects of ambient temperature changes on integral
bridges. Topeka, KS, USA: Kansas Department of Transportation; 2008. Technical
report K-TRAN: KSU-06-2.
[32] Pritchard B. Continuous and integral bridges. London, UK: Spon; 2003.
S.A. Mitoulis
[33] Peng J, Shao X, Jin X. Research on lifetime performance-based bridge design
method. In: Cruz Frangopol, Neves, editors. Bridge maintenance. Safety,
management, life-cycle performance and cost; 2006.
[34] Maruri RF, Petro SH. Integral abutments and jointless bridges IAJB 2004 survey
summary. In: Proc: FHWA conference on integral abutments and jointless bridges
(IAJB). Federal highway administration FHWA/constructed facilities.
Morgantown, USA: Center CFC at West Virginia University; 2005.
[35] Zuk W. Jointless bridges. Final report. Charlottesville: Virginia Highway and
Transportation Research Council; 1 Jul. .
[36] Paraschos A. Effects of wingwall configurations on the behavior of integral
abutment bridges. Doctoral dissertation. 2016.
[37] P€otzl M, Schlaich J. Robust concrete bridges without bearings and joints. Struct
Eng Int 1996;6(4):266–8.
[38] Fartaria C. Soil-structure interaction in integral abutment bridges. MSc thesis.
Lisbon: Instituto Superior T�ecnico, Universidade T� ecnica de Lisboa; 2012.
extended abstract.
[39] Xu M, Bloodworth A, Clayton C. Behavior of a stiff clay behind embedded integral
abutments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(6):721–30.
[40] Parke G, Hewson N. ICE manual of bridge engineering. Thomas Telford; 2008,
ISBN 0727734520.
[41] Xu M, Bloodworth A, Clayton CRI. Behavior of a stiff clay behind embedded
integral abutments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(6):721–30.
[42] Clayton C, Xu M, Bloodworth A. A laboratory study of the development of earth
pressure behind integral abutments. Geotechnique 2006;56(8):561–71.
[43] Bloodworth AG, Xu M, Banks JR, Clayton CRI. Predicting the earth pressure on
integral bridge abutments. J Bridge Eng 2012;17(2):371–81.
[44] Pak D, Bigelow H, Feldmann M. Design of composite bridges with integral
abutments. Steel Construct 2017;10(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/
stco.201710006.
[45] England GL, Tsang NCM. Towards the design of soil loading for integral bridges -
experimental evaluation. London, UK: Imperial College; 2001.
[46] PD6694-1, Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic
loading to BS EN 1997-1. London, UK: BSi (British Standard International); 2011.
[47] Lock RJ. Integral bridge abutments. London, UK: MEng Project Report. CUED/D-
SOILS/TR320; 2002.
[48] Briaud J, James RW, Hoffman SB. Settlement of bridge approaches.
Transportation Research Board; 1997. 0-309-6007-9.
[49] Helwany S. Evaluation of bridge approach settlement mitigation methods. Report
07-14, Wisconsin Highway Research Program. USA: University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee; 2007.
[50] Puppala AJ, Saride S, Archeewa E, Hoyos LR, Nazarian S. Recommendations for
design, construction and maintenance of bridge approach slabs: synthesis report,
Tech. Rep. FHWA/TX-09/0-6022-1. Arlington, Texas, USA: Texas Department of
Transportation; 2009.
[51] Denton S, Tsionis G, Acun B. The evolution of Eurocodes for bridge design.
Luxembourg: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the
Protection and Security of the Citizen; 2012.
[52] White H, Petursson H, Collin P. Integral abutment bridges: the European way.
Pract Period Struct Des Construct 2010;15(3):201–8.
[53] Wasserman EP. Integral abutment design (practices in the United States). In: 1st
US-Italy seismic bridge workshop, Pavia, Italy; 2007.
[54] Dunker KF, Liu D. Foundations for integral abutments. Pract Period Struct Des
Construct 2007;12(1):22–30.
[55] Bridge manual. third ed. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Transport Agency; 2013.
SP/M/022.
[56] Bakeer RM, Mattei NJ, Almalik BK, Carr SP, Homes D. Evaluation of DOTD semi-
integral bridge and abutment system. Tulane University. Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering; 2005.
[57] Arsoy S, Duncan JM, Barker RM. Behavior of a semiintegral bridge abutment
under static and temperature-induced cyclic loading. J Bridge Eng 2004;9(2):
193–9.
[58] Connal J. Integral abutment bridges–Australian and US practice. In: 5th
Austroads bridge conference. Tasmania: Hobart; 2004.
[59] California Department of Transportation. Bridge memo to designers (5-1).
Sacramento, CA. Caltrans: Division of Structures; 1992.
[60] White H. Integral abutment bridges: comparison of current practice between
European countries and the United States of America. FHWA/NY/SR-07/152.
Transportation Research and Development Bureau, New York State Department
of Transportation; 2007.
[61] Hoppe EJ. Field study of integral backwall with elastic inclusion. In: the 2005 –
FHWA Conference integral abutment and jointless bridges. Baltimore, Maryland,
USA: Virginia Transportation Research Council; 2005.
[62] Frangi A, Collin P, Geier R. Bridges with integral abutments: introduction. Struct
Eng Int 2011;2.
[63] Horvath JS. Integral-abutment bridges: a complex soil-structure interaction
challenge. In: Geotechnical engineering for transportation projects; 2004.
p. 460–9.
[64] Wassef W, Smith C, Clancy C, Smith M. Comprehensive design example for
prestressed concrete (PSC) girder superstructure bridge with commentary.
Federal Highway Administration report no. FHWA NHI-04-043, grant no.
DTFH61-02-D-63006. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2003.
[65] Mitoulis SA, Tegos IA. An unconventional restraining system for limiting the
seismic movements of isolated bridges. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):1100–12.
[66] Mitoulis SA, Tegos IA. Two new earthquake resistant integral abutments for
medium to long span bridges. Struct Eng Int 2011;21(2):157–61.
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
[67] White H. Wingwall type selection for integral abutment bridges: survey of current
practice in the United States of America. Transportation Research and
Development Bureau, New York State Department of Transportation; 2008.
Special Report 154.
[68] Mitoulis SA, Titirla MD, Tegos IA. Design of bridges utilizing a novel earthquake
resistant abutment with high capacity wing walls. Eng Struct 2014;66:35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.049.
[69] Mitoulis SA, Tegos ІА, Tsitotas MA. Integral abutment configurations for
arahthos-peristeri bridge (bridge T5, length 240.0m) of Egnatia highway. In:
Kappos AJ, editor. Aseismic design and construction in egnatia odos, the highway
connecting epirous through Macedonia to thrace and the eastern border of
Greece, Hellenic society for earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece: Ziti
Publications; 2010, ISBN 978-960-99529-0-3.
[70] Rhodes S, Moses J. Integral bridges and the modelling of soil-structure
interaction. In: IBC-14 LUSAS conference papers and presentations; 2014.
[71] Hassiotis S, Khodair Y, Roman E, Dehne Y. Evaluation of integral abutments.
Washington, DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration FHWA-NJ-2005-025;
2006.
[72] Efretuei EO. Thermal impact on soil-structure interaction for integral bridges.
PhD Thesis. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds; 2013.
[73] White DJ, Mekkawy MM, Sritharan S, Suleiman MT. “Underlying” causes for
settlement of bridge approach pavement systems. J Perform Constr Facil 2007;21
(4):273–82.
[74] Tsinidis G, Papantou M, Mitoulis SA. Response of integral abutment bridges under
a sequence of thermal loading and seismic shaking. Earthq Struct 2019;16(1).
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.1.000.
[75] Far NE, Maleki S, Barghian M. Design of integral abutment bridges for combined
thermal and seismic loads. Earthq Struct 2015 Aug 1;9(2):415–30.
[76] Fennema JL, Laman JA, Linzell DG. Predicted and measured response of an
integral abutment bridge. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2005;10(6):666–77.
[77] LaFave JM, Fahnestock LA, Wright BA, Riddle JK, Jarrett MW, Svatora JS, An H,
Brambila G. Integral abutment bridges under thermal loading: numerical
simulations and parametric study. Illinois Center for Transportation/Illinois
Department of Transportation; 2016.
[78] Paul M, Laman J, Linzell D. Thermally induced superstructure stresses in
prestressed girder integral abutment bridges. Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res
Board 2005:287–97.
[79] Zhang J, Makris N. Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffnesses of
bridge embankments. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2002;31(11):1933–66.
[80] Kozak DL, Luo J, LaFave JM, Fahnestock LA. Seismic response of integral
abutment bridges. Struct Congr 2017:48–57.
[81] Luo J, Fahnestock LA, Kozak DL, LaFave JM. Seismic analysis incorporating
detailed structure–abutment–foundation interaction for quasi-isolated highway
bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2017 May 4;13(5):581–603.
[82] Zangeneh A, Svedholm C, Andersson A, Pacoste C, Karoumi R. Identification of
soil-structure interaction effect in a portal frame railway bridge through full-scale
dynamic testing. Eng Struct 2018;159:299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2018.01.014.
[83] Goel RK. Earthquake characteristics of bridges with integral abutments. ASCE J
Struct Eng 1997;123(11):1435–43.
[84] Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S. Bridge–embankment interaction under transverse
ground excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36(12):1719–40.
[85] Franchin P, Pinto PE. Performance-based seismic design of integral abutment
bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 2014 Apr 1;12(2):939–60.
[86] Kotsoglou AN, Pantazopoulou SJ. Assessment and modeling of embankment
participation in the seismic response of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq
Eng 2009;7(2):343.
[87] Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte JP. Three-dimensional seismic response of
Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. ASCE J Struct Eng 2008;134(7):
1165–76.
[88] Murphy B, Yarnold M. Temperature-driven structural identification of a steel
girder bridge with an integral abutment. Eng Struct 2018;155:209–21.
[89] Rodriguez LE. Temperature effects on integral abutment bridges for the long-term
bridge performance program. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2012. Paper
1221. Utah, USA.
[90] Barker RM, Duncan JM, Rojiani KB, Ooi PS, Tan CK, Kim SG. NCHRP report 343:
manuals for the design of bridge foundations: shallow foundations, driven piles,
retaining walls and abutments, drilled shafts, estimating tolerable movements,
and load factor design specifications and commentary. Washington, DC, USA:
TRB, National Research Council; 1991.
[91] Waldin J, Jennings J, Routledge P. Critically damaged bridges and concepts for
earthquake recovery. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand society for earthquake
engineering annual conference; 2012. p. 1–8.
[92] Zhang Y, Conte JP, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak J, Acero G. Two-dimensional
nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system.
Earthq Spectra 2008;24(2):343–86.
[93] FHWA Conference integral abutment and jointless bridges (IAJB 2005).
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 16-18 March 2005.
[94] Melville BW. Pier and abutment scour: integrated approach. J Hydraul Eng 1997
Feb;123(2):125–36.
[95] Jeon JS, DesRoches R, Kim T, Choi E. Geometric parameters affecting seismic
fragilities of curved multi-frame concrete box-girder bridges with integral
abutments. Eng Struct 2016;122:121–43.
[96] Hoppe EJ, Eichenthal SL. Thermal response of a highly skewed integral bridge.
2012. No. FHWA/VCTIR 12-R10.
S.A. Mitoulis
[97] Horvath JS. Integral-abutment bridges: problems and innovative solutions using
EPS geofoam and other geosynthetics. Res. Rpt. No. CE/GE-00 2000;2.
[98] Nilsson M. Evaluation of in-situ measurements of composite bridge with integral
abutments. Doctoral dissertation. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå tekniska universitet;
2008.
[99] Pak D, Feldmann M. Design temperature load spectrum for the fatigue
verification of composite bridges with integral abutments. In: Composite
construction in steel and concrete VII; 2016. p. 36–50.
[100] Dicleli M, Albhaisi SM. Estimation of length limits for integral bridges built on
clay. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2004;9(6):572–81.
[101] Frosch RJ, Kreger ME, Talbott AM. Earthquake resistance of integral abutment
bridges. West Lafayette, Indiana: Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana
Department of Transportation and Purdue University; 2009. https://doi.org/
10.5703/1288284313448. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/11.
[102] Kim W, Laman JA. Seven-year field monitoring of four integral abutment bridges.
J Perform Constr Facil 2011;26(1):54–64.
[103] Skorpen SA, Kearsley EP, Clayton CR. Structural health monitoring of an integral
bridge. In: International conference on smart infrastructure and construction
2019 (ICSIC) driving data-informed decision-making. ICE Publishing; 2019.
p. 743–9.
[104] Barker KJ, Carder DR. Performance of the two integral bridges forming the A62
Manchester road overbridge, vol. 436. Berkshire, UK: Transport Research
Laboratory; 2000. TRL Report.
[105] Darley P, Alderman G. Measurement of thermal cyclic movements on two portal
frame bridges on the M1, vol. 165. London, UK: Transport Research Laboratory;
1995. TRL Report.
[106] Barker KJ, Carder DR. Performance of an integral bridge over the M1-A1 link road
at Branham Crossroads, vol. 521. London, UK: Transport Research Laboratory;
2001. TRL Report.
[107] Barker KJ, Carder DR. The long term monitoring of stresses behind three integral
bridge abutments. Concrete Bridge Development Group CBDG; 2006. Technical
Paper No 10. Unpublished Project Report UPR IS/045/05.
[108] Smith JC. Evaluation of passive force behavior for bridge abutments using large-
scale tests with various backfill geometries. PhD Dissertation. London, UK:
Brigham Young University; 2014.
[109] Pugasap K. Hysteresis model based prediction of integral abutment bridge
behaviour. PhD Dissertation. Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania State University;
2006.
[110] Abendroth RE, Greimann LF, LaViolette MD. An integral abutment bridge with
precast concrete piles: final report. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa Highway Research
Board, IHRB Project TR-438; 2007.
[111] Olson SM, Holloway KP, Buenker JM, Long JH, LaFave JM. Thermal behavior of
IDOT integral abutment bridges and proposed design modifications. In: Illinois
center for transportation series No 12-022; 2013. UILU-ENG-2012-2025; Illinois,
USA.
[112] Bre~na SF, Bonczar CH, Civjan SA, DeJong JT, Crovo DS. Evaluation of seasonal
and yearly behavior of an integral abutment bridge. J Bridge Eng 2007;12(3):
296–305.
[113] Ooi PS, Lin X, Hamada HS. Numerical study of an integral abutment bridge
supported on drilled shafts. J Bridge Eng 2009;15(1):19–31.
[114] Davids WG, Sandford T, Ashley S, DeLano J, Lyons C. Field-measured response of
an integral abutment bridge with short steel H-piles. J Bridge Eng 2009;15(1):
32–43.
[115] Kerokoski O. Soil structure interaction of long jointless bridges with integral
abutments. PhD thesis. Tampere, Finland: Tampere Univ. of Technology; 2006.
[116] Zornberg J, Abu-Hejleh N, Wang T. Geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge
abutments. In: Measuring the performance of geosynthetic reinforcement in
Colorado bridge structure. International workshop on the bridges with integral
abutments: topics of relevance for the INTAB project. Luleå tekniska universitet;
2006.
[117] Siddhartan R, El-Gamal M, Margakis EA. Nonlinear bridge abutment stiffnesses:
formulation verification and design curves. Nevada Department of Transportation
NDOT Research Report; 2001. RDT95-012.
[118] Stewart JP, Taciroglu E, Wallace JW, Ahlberg ER, Lemnitzer A, Rha C, Tehrani P,
Keowen S, Nigbor RL, Salamanca A. Full scale cyclic testing of foundation support
systems for highway bridges. Part II: abutment backwalls. No. SGEL 2007/02. Los
Angeles, UCLA, USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California; 2007.
[119] Wilson P, Elgamal A. Bridge-abutment-backfill dynamic interaction modeling
based on full scale tests. In: Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian
conference on earthquake engineering. Toronto: Canada; 2010. Paper No. 777.
[120] Wilson P, Elgamal A. Full scale bridge abutment passive earth pressure tests and
calibrated models. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[121] Hipley P, Huang M, Shakal A. Bridge instrumentation and post-earthquake
evaluation of bridges. In: InProceedings SMIP98 seminar on utilization of strong
motion data. USGS Earthquake Hazard Program; 1998. p. 53–71.
[122] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of bridge abutment capacity and stiffness during
earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 1997;13(1):1–23.
[123] Girton DD, Hawkinson TR, Greimann LF. Validation of design recommendations
for integral-abutment piles. J Struct Eng 1991;117(7):2117–34.
[124] England GL, Bush DI, Tsang NC. Integral bridges: a fundamental approach to the
time-temperature loading problem. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 2000.
[125] Xu M, Clayton CR, Bloodworth AG. The earth pressure behind full-height frame
integral abutments supporting granular fill. Can Geotech J 2007;44(3):284–98.
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
[126] Arsoy S, Duncan J, Barker R. Performance of piles supporting integral bridges.
Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board 1808;2002:162–7.
[127] Carder DR, Hayes JP. Performance under cyclic loading of the foundations of
integral bridgesvol. 433. Berkshire, UK: Transport Research Laboratory; 2000.
TRL Report.
[128] Ng CW, Springman SM, Norrish AR. Centrifuge modeling of spread-base integral
bridge abutments. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(5):376–88.
[129] Briseghella B, Lan C, Zordan T. Optimized design for soil-pile interaction and
abutment size of integral abutment bridges. In: International association for
bridge and structural engineering IABSE symposium report, vol. 97; 2010. p. 1–8.
23.
[130] Baptiste KT. Length limitations of prestressed concrete girder integral abutment
bridges. MSc Thesis. Pennsylvania, USA: The Pennsylvania State University; 2009.
[131] Dicleli M. Analytical prediction of thermal displacement capacity of integral
bridges built on sand. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8(1):15–30.
[132] Dicleli M, Albhaisi SM. Effect of cyclic thermal loading on the performance of
steel H-piles in integral bridges with stub-abutments. J Constr Steel Res 2004;60
(2):161–82.
[133] Dicleli M, Eng P, Albhaisi SM. Maximum length of integral bridges supported on
steel H-piles driven in sand. Eng Struct 2003;25(12):1491–504.
[134] Baptiste KT, Kim W, Laman JA. Parametric study and length limitations for
prestressed concrete girder integral abutment bridges. Struct Eng Int 2011;21(2):
151–6.
[135] Mitoulis SA, Palaiochorinou A, Georgiadis I, Argyroudis S. Extending the
application of integral frame abutment bridges in earthquake-prone areas by
using novel isolators of recycled materials. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2016;45
(14):2283–301.
[136] Masrilayanti. The behaviour of integral bridges under vertical and horizontal
earthquake ground motion. PhD Thesis. UK: University of Salford; 2013.
[137] Mu~ noz M, Briseghella B, Xue J. Soil structure interaction under semi static loads
in an integral abutment bridgevol. 316. American Concrete Institute ACI Special
Publication; 2017. p. 55–72. SP.
[138] Harvey DI, Kennedy DW, Ruffo GW. Integral abutment bridges-design and
constructability. In: 6th international conference on short and medium span
bridges. Vancouver, Canada; 2002.
[139] Maine Department of Transportation. “Substructure.” Maine DOT bridge design
guide. Maine, USA: Maine Dept. of Transportation, Augusta, Maine; 2014.
accessed Nov. 2018, https://bit.ly/2KpPmQ1.
[140] Lan C. On the performance of super-long integral abutment bridges: parametric
analyses and design optimization. PhD Thesis. Trento, Italy: University of Trento;
2012.
[141] Dreier D. Interaction sol-structure dans le domaine des ponts int� egraux. PhD
Thesis No 4880. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Ecole� polytechnique f�ed�erale de
Lausanne; 2010.
[142] Nishida H, Miyata H, Kimura S, Kohno T, Nanazawa T, Nakatani S. Design and
construction guideline of integral abutment bridges for Japanese highways. In:
Proceedings of the 28th US - Japan bridge engineering workshop. Portland,
Oregon, USA; 2012.
[143] Munoz M, Xue J, Briseghella B, Nuti C. Semi static loads in an integral abutment
bridge. In: International association for bridge and structural engineering IABSE
symposium report, vol. 106; 2016. p. 61–9. 13.
[144] Maroney B. Large scale bridge abutment tests to determine stiffness and ultimate
strength under seismic loading. PhD Dissertation. Davis, USA: Univ. of California;
1995.
[145] Najm H, Nassif H, Albhaisi S, Khoshkbari P, Gucunski N. Seismic analysis of
retaining walls, buried structures, embankments and integral abutments.
Piscatawny, NJ, USA: Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Center for
Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT), Rutgers, The State
University; 2005. FHWA-NJ-2005-002.
[146] Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S. Bridge–embankment interaction under transverse
ground excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36(12):1719–40.
[147] Kotsoglou AN, Pantazopoulou SJ. Assessment and modeling of embankment
participation in the seismic response of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq
Eng 2009;7(2):343.
[148] Zhang J, Makris N. Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including
soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2002;31:1967–91.
[149] McCallen DB, Romstad KM. Dynamic analyses of a skewed short-span, box-girder
overpass. Earthq Spectra 1994;10(4):729–56.
[150] Caristo A, Palaiochornou A, Mitoulis S. Numerical research on the seismic
response of novel integral abutment bridge designs and comparison to the current
design practice. In: Proc 1st international conference on natural hazards &
infrastructure. Chania, crete, Greec; 2016.
[151] Caristo A, Barnes J, Mitoulis SA. Numerical modelling of integral abutment
bridges under seasonal thermal cycles. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil
engineers - bridge engineering. London, UK: Thomas Telford Ltd.; 2018. p. 1–12.
[152] Kwon OS, Elnashai AS. Fragility analysis of a highway over-crossing bridge with
consideration of soil–structure interactions. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2010 Feb 1;6
(1–2):159–78.
[153] Pekcan G, Itani A, Monzon E. Seismic design recommendations for steel girder
bridges with integral abutments. In: 89th transportation research board annual
meeting, Washington, DC, USA; 2010.
[154] Faraji S, Ting JM, Crovo DS, Ernst H. Nonlinear analysis of integral bridges: finite-
element model. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(5):454–61.
[155] Gorini DN, Callisto L. A coupled study of soil-abutment-superstructure
interaction. Lecture Notes Civ Eng 2020;40(2020):565–74.
S.A. Mitoulis
[156] Erhan S, Dicleli M. Effect of dynamic soil–bridge interaction modeling
assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges. Soil Dynam
Earthq Eng 2014;66:42–55.
[157] DeLano JG. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Behavior of pile-supported
integral abutments at bridge sites with shallow bedrock, vol. 120. USA: University
of Maine; 2004. MSc Thesis, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd
/120.
[158] Alqarawi AS, Leo CJ, Liyanapathirana DS, Ekanayake S. Parametric study on the
approach problem of an integral abutment bridge subjected to cyclic loading due
to temperature changes. In: Applied mechanics and materials. Trans tech
publications, vol. 846; 2016. p. 421–7. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.
net/AMM.846.421.
[159] Mar TA. Validation of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction analysis of
Meloland Road overcrossing. MSc Thesis. Sacramento, USA: California State
University; 2013.
[160] David TK, Forth JP, Ye J. Superstructure behavior of a stub-type integral
abutment bridge. J Bridge Eng 2014;19(6). 04014012.
[161] David TK, Forth JP. Modelling of soil structure interaction of integral abutment
bridges. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2011;78:769–74.
[162] Argyroudis S, Mitoulis SA, Kaynia A, Winter M. Fragility assessment of
transportation infrastructure systems subjected to earthquakes, vol. 292. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication; 2018. p. 174–83. GSP.
[163] EN 1997-1: Eurocode 7: geotechnical design–part. General rules 2004;1.
[164] Integrale Bauwerke. RE-ING Richtlinien für den Entwurf und die Ausbildung von
Ingenieurbauten. Teil 2, Brücken, Abschnitt 5, Bundesministerium für Verkehr.
Germany: Bau und Stadtentwicklung; 2013.
[165] Bundesamt für Strassen ASTRA. Richtlinien für konstruktive Einzelheiten von
Brücken. Switzerland: Kapitel 3 Brückenende, Bern; 2010.
[166] de Fomento Ministerio, General de Carreteras Direcci� on. Guía para la concepci�
on
de puentes integrales en carreteras. Madrid, Spain, vol. 108; 2000.
[167] Duncan JM, Mokwa RL. Passive earth pressures: theories and tests. ASCE J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(3):248–57.
[168] Shave J, Christie T, Denton S, Kidd A. Development of traffic surcharge models for
highway structures. In: Proceedings of bridge design to Eurocodes– bridge design
to Eurocodes: UK implementation. ICE Publishing; 2011, ISBN 978-0-7277-4150-
9. https://doi.org/10.1680/bdte.41509.463.
[169] CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Parts 1-2: General Rules –
Structural Fire Design (EN 1992-1-2:2004). Brussels, Belgium: European
Committee for Standardization; 2004. p. 100.
[170] Canadian Geotechnical Society. Canadian foundation engineering manual. fourth
ed. 2006.
[171] Krizek J. Soil–structure interaction of integral bridges. Struct Eng Int 2011;21(2):
169–74.
[172] Khalili-Tehrani P, Shamsabadi A, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E. Backbone curves with
physical parameters for passive lateral response of homogeneous abutment
backfills. Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14(11):3003–23.
[173] Xue J. reportRetrofit of existing bridges with concept of integral abutment bridge:
static and dynamic parametric analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Trento).
[174] Buckle I, Friedland I, Mander J, Martin G, Nutt R, Power M. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures: Part
1-Bridges. 2006. FHWA-HRT-06-032.
[175] Wilson P, Elgamal A. Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-φ
backfill. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2015;71:13–26.
[176] Concrete Bridge Development Group. Design of integral bridges to EN1992-2,
ISBN 978-1-904482-59-8. CBDG/TG13. CCIP-027 2010.
[177] Denton S, Riches O, Christie T, KiddBridge A. Developments in integral bridge
design. In: Bridge design to Eurocodes: UK implementation. ICE Publishing; 2011,
ISBN 978-0-7277-4150-9. https://doi.org/10.1680/bdte.41509.463.
[178] Abdel-Fattah MT, Abdel-Fattah TT. Behavior of integral frame abutment bridges
due to cyclic thermal loading: nonlinear finite-element analysis. J Bridge Eng
2019 Feb 28;24(5). 04019031.
[179] EN 1998-2. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Bridges
2005;2. 2005.
[180] Bouassida Y, Bouchon E, Crespo P, Croce P, Davaine L, Denton S, et al. Bridge
design to Eurocodes-Worked examples. In: Athanasopoulou A, Poljansek M,
17
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 135 (2020) 106183
Pinto A, Tsionis G, Denton S, editors. Work. ‘‘Bridge des. To Eurocodes. EUR
25193. Vienna, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.
https://doi.org/10.2788/82360.
[181] Jeon JS, Choi E, Noh MH. Fragility characteristics of skewed concrete bridges
accounting for ground motion directionality. Struct Eng Mech 2017 Sep 10;63(5):
647–57.
[182] Simon J, Vigh LG. Seismic fragility assessment of integral precast multi-span
bridges in areas of moderate seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14(11):3125–50.
[183] Stefanidou SP, Kappos AJ. Methodology for the development of bridge-specific
fragility curves. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2017 Jan;46(1):73–93.
[184] Choine MN, O’Connor A, Padgett JE. A seismic reliability assessment of
reinforced concrete integral bridges subject to corrosion. Key Eng Mater 2013;
569:366–73 [Trans Tech Publications].
[185] Choine MN, Kashani MM, Lowes LN, O’Connor A, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA,
Padgett JE. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and seismic fragility assessment of a
corrosion damaged integral bridge. Int J Struct Integr 2016;7(2):227–39.
[186] Zordan T, Briseghella B, Lan C. Analytical formulation for limit length of integral
abutment bridges. Struct Eng Int 2011;21(3):304–10.
[187] England GL, Tsang NCM, Ferreira P, Teixeira BS. Some design improvements for
integral bridges, bridge design, construction and maintenance. 5th current &
future trends in bridge design, construction and maintenance. China: ICE; 2007.
p. 93–103.
[188] Horvath JS. Lateral pressure reduction on earth-retaining structures using
geofoams: correcting some misunderstandings. In: Earth retention conference 3.
Washington, USA; 2010. p. 862–9.
[189] P€otzl M, Naumann F. Fugenlose betonbrücken mit flexiblen widerlagern. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 2005;100(8):675–85.
[190] Athanasopoulos-Zekkos A, Lamote K, Athanasopoulos GA. Use of EPS geofoam
compressible inclusions for reducing the earthquake effects on yielding earth
retaining structures. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2012;41:59–71.
[191] Fiorentino G, Cengiz C, De Luca F, De Benedetti G, Lolli F, Dietz M, Dihoru L,
Lavorato D, Karamitros D, Briseghella B, Isakovic T, Vrettos C, Topa Gomes A,
Sextos A, Mylonakis G, Nuti C. Shaking table tests on an integral abutment bridge
model: preliminary results. In: COMPDYN 2019, 7th international conference on
computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering;
2019. p. 24–6. June 2019, Crete.
[192] Humphrey DN. Civil engineering applications using tire derived aggregate.
California, USA: Publication DRRR-2011-038. California Integrated Waste
Management Board CIWMB; 2011.
[193] Environmental Protection Agency. Scrap Tires: handbook on recycling
applications and management for the US and Mexico; Washington DC, USA. 2010.
EPA530-R-10-010.
[194] Mitoulis S, Argyroudis SA, Pitilakis KD. Green rubberised compressible inclusions
to enhance the longevity of integral abutment bridges. 15th ECEES, Istanbul,
Turkey. 2014.
[195] Revised technical guidelines on environmentally sound management of used
tyres. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme UNEP/
CHW/OEWG/6/INF/6; 2007.
[196] Environmental Protection Agency. Scrap Tires: handbook on recycling
applications and management US-ME. 2010.
[197] United Nations Environment Programme. Revised technical guidelines on
environmentally sound management of used tyres. 2010.
[198] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). D6270 standard practice for
use of scrap tires in civil engineering applications. West Conshohocken, PA, USA:
ASTM International; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1520/D6270-08R12.
[199] Argyroudis S, Palaiochorinou A, Mitoulis S, Pitilakis D. Use of rubberised backfills
for improving the seismic response of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq Eng
2016;14(12):3573–90.
[200] WSDOT bridge design manual (LRFD) M 23-50.17. Chapter 7 substructure design.
2017.
[201] Dicleli M. Integral abutment-backfill behavior on sand soil - pushover analysis
approach. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2005;10(3):354–64.
[202] Frosch RJ, Chovichien V, Durbin K, Fedroff D. “Jointless and smoother bridges:
behavior and design of piles.” FHWA/IN/JTRP- 2004/24, Joint Transportation
Research Program. West Lafayette, IN: Indiana Department of Transportation and
Purdue University; 2006.