PB88245105

1111111111111111111111111111111

Maty/andDepanment
• ofTianspottatlon

• STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

• RESEARCH REPORT

STATE-OF-THE-ART STUDIES
INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

•
AW087-313-046
• FINAL REPORT
JANUARY ~ 1987

•
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
 )

The contents of this report reflec~ the views of the author who is
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies
of the Maryland State Hiqhway Administration or of the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does no~ constitute a standard, specifica-
tion, or regulation.
•
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
1. Repor' No. 2. Gower"",enl Acce ••ion No. 3. Recipien'·. CO'olog No.

FHWA/MD-87/ 0 1
• 4. Ti,l. and 5ublille 5. Report Date
January, 1987
Integral Abutment Bridge Design and
Construction 6. Pe,"...,in, Organilo'ion Colie

7. Author/.l 8. Perform;n, Organilation Repor' No.

• Amde M. Wolde-Tinsae and James E. Klinger

1------------------------------~:__~--~---------__1u
9. Performing O'gOl'li zotion Nome ond Addr ... 10. Work Unil No.
University of Maryland
Department of Civil Engineering 11. Con,rac, or Gronl No.
AW087-313-046 Task D
13. Type of Report and Period Cower.d
•
~----------------------------___1
12. 5pon.oring Ag.ncy Nome and Addre ..
Maryland Department of Transportation Final Report
State Highway Administration
707 N. Calvert Street 14. Spon.oring Agency Code

Baltimore, MD 21202
15. Supplemenlory No'.'

• This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract

Highway agencies have been plagued with problems related to bridge

expansion joints. The extent of the problem is such that many highway

• agencies cannot meet the maintenance demand. Many agencies, however,

have managed to bypass the use of deck expansion joints by allowing
thermal loads to be transferred elsewhere. In this study, a comprehen-
sive literature review was conducted to determine the extent of this
practice and to identify the various jointless bridge concepts currently
in use. The review was supplemented by survey questionnaires sent to
selected highway agencies in the U.S. and abroad. It was learned that

• 28 states in the U.S. and several foreign highway agencies are building
long, multiple span highway bridges without expansion joints. The
predominate method used by these highway agencies is the integral abut-
ment concept. This study presents the various jointless bridge concepts
and examines the wide-scale feasibility of each.

•
17. Key Word. 18. Ol."i""'ion S'al....en'

• Integral abutment, Jointless

bridges, Expansion joints, Thermal
movement, Continous bridges
No restri.ctions. This document is
available to the public through
the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Clo •• ,f. (of 'hi. repor') 20. Securily Clolld. (of 'his pog.1 21. No. of Pag.. 22. Price

None None 71
Form DOT F 1700.7 8·691 I
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •....................................................... i i
LIST OF FIGURES •••• .................................................... iii
• LIST OF TABLES ••••• .................................................... v
1.0 INTRODUCTION ••••• ................................................. 1

1.1 Background ••.•..•.•••.••••••••••••.••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 1

• 1.2 Economic Analysis and Discussion •••• ............ . ' 6

2.0 JOINTLESS BRIDGE CONCEPTS. ........................................ 13

2.1 Int roduct i on ......•.....................................•.••. 13

• 2.2
2.3
.................
Integra 1 and Semi -I nteg ra1 Abutment Bri dges.
link-slab and Plank-type Bridges ••••• ........................
14

30

2.4 The "Flexible Arch" Concept. ................................. 32

• 2.5
2.6
The Slip-joint Concept •••••........•...•..••.•.•.••.•••••••.•
Abutmentless Bridges ..••...••••..•••••...••.•••..••.••.••••••
37

38

3.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43

3.1 Tennessee ••..•.••••.•••• 0 ••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••• 43

• 3.2 Mi ssouri •••••• • • • • 0 •••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••••••• 0 ••••••••• 0 •••••• 43

3.3 California •••• eo • • • • • • • • 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••• 0 • 0 0 • 0 ••• 43

3.4 North Dakota •• • ••••••• 0 • 0 ••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 46

• 3.5
3.6
Ontario (Canada)
New Zealand ••••••••••••• • 0
o 0 ••• 0

••••••••••••••••••••••
• 0 •• 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 ••••

0 ••••••
0 ••••••••

0 •••••
48
48
3.7 Queensland (Au s t r ali a) ••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 0 ••• 0 •••• 50

3.~ New South Wales (Au s t ra 1i a) ••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 ••• 0 ••• 0 ••••••••• 55

• 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS •• ••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 59

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 61

REF ERE NCES. • • . • • . • • •• . • . •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• • •• • • • • •• •••• •• ••• •• ••• • • •••• ••• 63

. ....-
1
,.."
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• The research reported herein was sponsored by the Maryland State High-
way Administration, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration.

• The authors are grateful for the guidance and contributions made
during the course of the project by Messrs. E.S. Freedman, A Scott Parrish,
E.J. White and B. Heard of the Maryland State Highway Administration.
The authors would also like to thank the various highway agencies in

• the U.S. and abroad who responded to the survey questionnaire.

Appreciation is also due to Ms. Ellie Corbett, whose assistance was
invaluable.

•
•

•
i;
•
LIST OF FIGURES

'. Fi gu re
1. Map of the United States illustrating the extent of the use
of the integral abutment bridge concept ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15

• 2.
3.
Cross-section of a bridge with expansion joints ••••••••••••••••••••• 16
Convent i ona 1 abutment deta i 1s. • ••• • • •• •• • • • •• •• •• •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • ••• 17
4. Cross-section of a bridge with integral abutments ••••••••••••••••••• 18
• 5. Typical integral abutment details ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19
6. Typical semi-integral abutment details •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 20
7. Typical integral abutment details ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 22

• 8.
9.
Timber pile detail used in Iowa ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23
Typical predri11ed oversize hole detai1. ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
10. Construction sequence and details of a link-slab bridge
(Australia) ...................................•..............•...... 31

• 11.

12.
Construction sequence of a link.-slab bridge with a
cantilever-type expansion joint (Australia) ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
420/QEW bridge, plan and elevation views (Canada) ••••••••••••••••••• 35
13. 420/QEW bridge, abutment details (Canada) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36

• 14.
15.
Proposed view of bridge using slip-joint concept (Virginia) ••••••••• 39
Elevation of an abutmentless bridge (Australia). •••••••••••••••••••• 40
16. Abutmentless bridge details (Australia). ••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 41
17. Typical integral abutment details (Tennessee) ••••••••••••••••••••••• 44
• 18. Typical semi-integral abutment details (Tennessee) •••••••••••••••••• 45
19. Pressure-relief abutment detail (North Dakota) •••••••••••••••••••••• 47
20. Standardized design drawing for integral abutment bridges
@ 100 feet (New Zealand) ••••••.•..•...•.••.••.•••••..••......••••... 49

21. Elevation of Kauaeranga bridge (New Zealand) •••••••••••••••••••••••• 51

iii
•
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
• Figure Page
22. Kauaeranga bridge semi-integral abutment details (New Zealand) •••••• 52
23. Typical plank-slab bridge abutment details (Australia) •••••••••••••• 53

• 24.
25.
Plank-slab bridge pier details (Australia) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 54
Pier and abutment details (Australia) .••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••• 56
26. Elevation and view of typical plank-slab bridge (Australia) ••••••••• 57

•
•
•

iv
•
LIST OF TABLES

• Page
Table 1. Length Limits For Bridges With Integral Abutments (feet) .... 27
Table 1. (Cant.) Length Limits For Bridges With Integral Abutments
(fee t ) '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

•
•

•
•

•
v
•
1. INTRODUCTION

• 1.1 Background

Bridge engineering is a task that requires the simultaneous accomplishment

• of three main objectives: the completed structure must be safe, aesthetically

pleasing, and economical. In the past, this task has been hampered by the:
need to include costly expansion joint systems in the bridge superstructure.
But many highway agencies have been able to bypass (or at least minimize) the
• use of expansion joints in the bridge superstructure by allowing thermal loads
to be transferred elsewhere. This practice has resulted in bridge structures
that are safe, aesthetically pleasing, and economical.

• Traditionally, a system of expansion joints, roller supports, and other

structural releases has been provided on long multiple-span highway bridges to
permit thermal expansion and contraction. The desirable characteristics of an

• expansion joint system are water-tightness, smooth rideability, low noise

level, wear-resistance, and resistance to damage caused by snowplow blades.
In reality, however, the performance of many joint systems is disappointing.
When subjected to traffic and bridge movement, they fail in one or more
• important aspects, notably water-tightness (1).
Flow of runoff water through open bridge deck joints or leaking sealed
joints has been one of the major causes of extensive maintenance and costly

• rehabilitation work on bridges in general. The problem is especially

aggravated in the so-called "snow belt" states, where runoff water contains
highly corrosive chlorides. An estimated 12 million tons of sodium chloride
and calcium chloride are used annually during wintertime deicing operations in
• the United States (2). This practice introduces bridge decks and

1
substructural elements located ~ear expansion joints to a highly aggressive
corrosive environment.
Crevice corrosion. for example. is one particularly significant corrosion
mech~nism that affects structural details including bolted connections.
cantilever-type expansion joints. and lap joints not welded all around that
are located in areas shielded from bold exposure to the environment. Crevice
corrosion is defined as an accelerated form of corrosion occurring between two
metal surfaces that are in close contact with each other in a corrosive
environment. with a growth rate ranging from 10 to 100 times that of general
corrosion (13).
One case study of a cantilever-type expansion joint illustrates the
deleterious effect of deicing chlorides on steel within crevices (13). Visual
inspection of a disassembled link plate in this joint. removed from a
weathering steel bridge in Detroit. Michigan. revealed severe crevice
corrosion between the link plate and the girder web. It resulted in tight
rust-packing of the gap between the two elements. preventing movement of the
expansion joint and causing other structural damage to the bridge.
Other critical substructural elements that are commonly damaged by water
runoff through expansion joints include steel girders and stringers, bearings,
rollers, anchor bolts. and the like (3). Corrosion in these critical areas is
~ '~I

particularly severe for ~athering steel bridges that have no protective

coatings. Similarly, the coating system of painted bridges that are
fabricated from nonatmospheric corrosion-resistant steels deteriorates much
faster near bridge expansion joints. In addition. reinforced concrete
substructural members such as piers and pier caps are often subjected to
scaling and spalling caused by deck runoff through joints, which subsequently
leads to corrosion of exposed reinforcing steel (2).

2
 In some bridges, troughs have been placed below open expansion joints to

• collect the runoff water and discharge it through drain pipes away from the
structure. This solution does not seem to be viable because it introduces an
additional item to clean and maintain. The original problem reoccurs as soon

• as accumulated roadway debris clogs the troughs and pipes, causing the runoff
water to overflow. In the snow belt states, accumulated sand and deicing
chlorides further aggravates the problem by accelerating the clogging/corrosion
process (l).
• For bridges with reinforced concrete decks, sections of the slab located
adjacent to expansion joints are particularly vulnerable to deterioration.
Permeable stress cracks in the concrete, developed from repetetive traffic

• pounding at the joint or edge distress due to the cantilever action of

finger-type joints, leave reinforcing steel exposed to water and corrosive
chlorides. Unless epoxy-coated rebars are used, the progressive decay of the

• reinforcing steel that follows initiates fracture forces in the slab, leading
to the formation of spalled areas and dangerous potholes (2).
The problems with expansion joints have become most noticeable since the
late 1960's, when joint related damage reached alarming proportions (2,4). An
• increased volume of traffic, with more vehicles carrying heavier loads and
traveling at higher speeds, made the rapid bridge deterioration near the
joints readily apparent to users of the bridge and bridge inspectors alike.

• The increased cost of maintenance or replacement of faulty expansion joints,

along with the initial cost of design, manufacture, and i~stallation continues
to place a burden on both the state highway agencies and the taxpaying public
(5) •

• Two contemporary case studies of bridges recently repaired or

rehabilitated due to poor performance of expansion joints illustrate the high

3
cb~t of ~jih~eha~ce and rehabilitatidh. T~e Berija~in ~ranklin bridge. fo~
exampie. was rehabilitated in 1986 by the Delaware River Port Authority at a
cost of $56.4 million. The redecking of the bridge was prompted by
~~ci~~~ssiv~ d~t~~id~ititin b~ th~ tbncrete deck. and exte~sive cbrfo~ion of

steel stringers lbcated near dp~n deck expansion joints (6).

Another bridge, tHe Tappan Zee over the Hudson River, has been plagued
with problems associated witH its two large finger joint/drainage trougn
systems. Complaints of excessive noise generated by traffic at these joints,
along with the otcurrent~ of numerous bicycle/motorcycle accidents caused by
the joints~ ~circed the Thruiay Authority to criver them with welded stee~
plates. These plates are often jarred loose, however, by heavy traffic
pounding~ An estimaten $30;000 is spent annually by the Thruway Authority to
maintain each joint (4).
Maintenance problems are further amplified by poor performance of the
drai nage t rO'ughs, whl ch have caused severe corros i on of the substructu re of
the Tappan Zee Bridge despif~ yearly flushing and maintenance of the drainage
system. In an effort t'O redlke any further damage to the subst~ucture, the
two faulty expansion j~int systems are scheduled to be replaced with
sealed-type joints in 1986. :Since the Tappan lee is a toll bridge, funding
for maintenance and rehabilitati~n is readily available. This is often not
the case, however, for "many state hi ghway departments with 1arge numbers of
bridges to ~aint~1n or rehabilit~te (4,5,11).
In addition to causin9 structural damage, bridge expansion joints are
often associated with unsavory aesthetic conditions and potential safety
hazards. Common complaints concern poor rideability and excessive noise
brought about by spalling and potholing of the deck near joints, uneven or
loose joints, or finger Joints that are out of parallel alignment (3,4).

4
 Leaking expansion joints are notorious for promoting unsightly rust stains on
concrete piers and abutments once elements of the substructure have started to
corrode. Growth of vegetation on bridges, another common eyesore, occurs in
roadway debris accumulated in and around expansion joints and drainage

• troughs. A recent case study of the newly-rehabilitated Woodrow Wilson bridge

shows that vegetation growth can contribute to the clogging of drainage
troughs in a relatively short period of time (4).
Safety considerations may also come in to play when expansion joi.nts are
• included in a bridge structure. Several studies have linked expansion joints
and/or associated maintenance operations to accidents and potentially
dangerous roadway conditions. On the Tappan Zee Bridge, for example, numerous
• traffic accidents occurred when motorcycle or bicycle tires became lodged in
the spaces between fingers in the joints. When steel plates were welded over
the joints in an attempt to remedy the situation, they were often jarred loose

• by traffic pounding, placing another potential hazard in the roadway (4).

In another case, the fuel tank of a truck crossing the Calcasieu River
Bridge (Louisiana) was struck and ruptured by a dislodged steel plate used to
cover faulty expansion joints under repair. Diesel fuel spilled on to the
• bridge, causing a rash of skidding collisions involving 26 vehicles with 3
deaths and 18 injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board determined
that negligent joint repair contributed to the accident (7).

• In addition, expansion joints have been associated with several other

safety concerns. Ponding of water on bridge decks, for example, due to
clogged drainage troughs can present hazards such as hydroplaning to 55 mph
highway traffic. During winter months, joints uneven in elevation are
• frequently hit by snowplow blades, often resulting in damage to the joint, the
snowplow, or the driver. And, in rural areas, especially in Europe where

5
mixed traffic is commonplace, animals have been injured by open expansion
joints (8).
The previous discussion concerning the disadvantages associated with
using bridge expansion joints is by no means exhaustive. The examples were
chosen because they represent the wide range and depth of the problem. Out of
the estimated 570,000 highway bridges in the United States, nearly half are
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More than half of the
problems reported with these bridges indlcate that they are related to the
expansion joints (5). In addition to the many costs involved in every phase
of the expansion joint life-cycle, the deterioration of bridges attributed to
joints is causing widespread inconvenience and loss of time due to traffic
interruptions. The obvious move, then, is to greatly reduce the number of
expansion joints used in a bridge structure or to eliminate them altogether.

1.2 Economic Analysis and Discussion

The first known published acknowledgement of the expansion joint dilemma

accompanied by a proposed solution appreared in 1930 (9). The author called
for the elimination of bridge expansion joints by using arguments based on the
annual costs of a bridge structure. The economic formulas cited in that paper
were modified to exclude many terms not directly relevant to the topic, and
have since became obsolete. The logic used to support the arguments, however,
has not. In the discussion that follows, therefore. the equations are
presented in their modified form.
The annual cost of a bridge structure can be determined by the following
expression:

6
 Annual Cost = (r + m + a) C ( 1)

where:
r = Annual percent unit cost for capital (i .e. interest rate)

• m = Annual percent average unit maintenance cost

a = Annual percent amortization cost
C = Total fi rst cost of the bridge (dollars)

• This equation, which states that the annual cost of a bridge may be
expressed as some percentage of its total first cost, is relatively straight
forward. One can see by inspection that this annual cost can be minimized by

• reducing any or all of the factors on the right hand side of the equation.
Since the interest rate Il r " falls outside the scope of this discussion, this
factor may be ignored. The next factor to be cons i dered is II mil , the annual

• cost of bridge maintenance.

In part. bridge maintenance programs have been developed to respond to
damage brought about by the detrimental effects of weather, deicing chlorides,
organic growth. deterioration. traffic wear, vandalism, aging, material
• failures, and design and construction faults (10). Due to these and other
concerns, many of which are associated with the poor performance of expansion
joints, state highway departments are unable to satisfy ever-increasing

• maintenance demands. As a result. the number of structurally or functionally

deficient highway bridges in the United States is increasing at a rate much
faster than replacement is possible (5,11).
Due to the diversity of record keeping of the state highway departments,
• the exact amount of maintenance dollars spent each year in the United States
on joint-related repairs is difficult to determine. Many states, for example,

7
r~pqrt bridge maintena~ce costs in either Major Structure Maintenance or Minor
Structure Maint~nance categories. and activities such as expansion joint
maintenance ~nd associateq costs are not identified individually within each
c.ategory
,."" .,
(11).
.

Despite this fact, Fed~ral governm~nt ~xpenditures illustrate the

magnitude of the problem. In the past. sever~l attempts have been made by the
United States Cqngr~ss to reli~ve the considerable financial burdens faced by
many state high~ay dep~rt~ents ~ith large numbers of bridges to maintain and
reh~bilitat~. The 1970 Feder~l High~ay Act, for ex~mple, identified over
100,000 bridges a~ structurally or f~nctionally deficient and scheduled them
for replaceroent~ In additon~ ~he Surface Transportation Assistance Act passed
by Congress in 19]8 ~llocated '4.2 billion for a bridge rehabilitation and
repl acement program last i ng only, 4 ye.ars (11).
In addition to ~he already high cost of expansion joint maintenance, the
problem is a9gravat~d further bec,a}Jse the repair dollar has less buying power
than the new construction dolla,r. Maintenance costs are magnified by the
smaller quantities used" uncertainty in estimating, traffic control considera-
tions, difficult repair situations, and the fact that much of the work is
labor-intensive (5).
In view of the ca.se studies and examples presented above, it is readily
apparent that expansion joints are a built-in maintenance problem and are
clearly responsible for the continuing erosion of many state highway
department maintenance budgets. One can safely conclude that the e,l imination
or reduction of expansion joints used in a bridge structure will sharply
reduce the yearly cost of maintenance "m".
The next factor to be considered is the annual cost of amortization "a".
Amortization is defined as the sum, per dollar of first cost which, if

8
 deposited at compound interest. would accumulate a sinking fund sufficient to
renew the structure at the end of its service life. Amortization is calcu-
lated as follows:

• a = - -r- - - (2)

where: r = Annual interest rate (percent)

• n = Service life of bridge (years)

As before, the interest rate "r" is not directly related to the topic and

• may be omitted from this discussion. It then becomes obvious that the
amortization cost can only be reduced by increasing the service life "n" of
the bridge.
The chronic deterioration of highway bridges in the United States is a
• widespread problem that. if not kept in check. often leads to a significant
shortening of their service lives. Since all expansion joints require
periodic or preventive maintenance. many state highway departments are unable

• to satisfy this demand. Budget restrictions and lack of personnel are common
impediments, and in many cases maintenance problems are ignored until
emergency work is required (5,11).

• An estimated 427,500 highway bridges in the United States are over 45

years old (5), and replacement of these structures is not feasible in today's
economic environment. Since maintenance is the inevitable alternative. the
importance of increasing the service life of new bridges is amplified.

• Clearly, the reduction or elimination of expansion joints is an attractive and

viable solution.

9
 The' remaining fac-tor to be consider~d is the total first cost "e" of the
bridge ~tructur~. Part of this fi~~t cost includes the cost of materials a~d

con~trtiction. One of the fnher~rit advant~ges of eliminating expansion joints

is th~t it re~ult~ in ccinsid~r~ble savirigs in th~~e two areas.
Reduct i on in materi al costs ca'n be accomplished as follows:
Initial cost cif exp~nsiori joint syste~~ is ~ti~inated
By making the bridge continuous over the interior supports, negative
moments over the supports serve to reduce midspan moments, allowing a
reduct 1on in depth of sect iion and SUD sequent reduct i on Of de'ad load.
One row of beari ngs is automat i cal y eliminated at each support
- Rollers and similar structural releases are eliminated.
Pier width may be reduced, and obstruction to stream flow (hence
tendency to scour) is minimized
Paint used to protect substructural elements near expansion joints in
steel brid~es, ~a~tic~l'rly those cbnstructed with weathering steel,
is not needed.
When expansion joints areihcorporated into the superstructure between
abutments, many bridge decks must be placed in separate operations, resulting
in larger construction costs. One study (12) summarized the structural and
economic advantages of continuous bridge deck construction as follows:

- Production of a h6mogeneous structural slab having true composite

act ion.
Elimination of deck expansion joints.
- Reduction in plastic and drying shrinkage craCKS.
- Reduction in the number of moves on and off a given structure by the
workmen and equipment.

10
 Labor and materials required for establishing transverse bulkheads
• is minimized or eliminated.

Information concerning the above mentioned economic advantages of joint

elimination was gathered from a review of the literature and survey

• questionnaires. Although the trend· in responses indicates that the

elimination of expansion joints is a cost-effective procedure. no information
on actual cost savings expressed in dollars or percentage of first cost was

• available •
In summary. it has been shown that expansion joints have a negative
economic impact in all phases of highway bridge service life from design and
construction to the inevitable maintenance burdens that follow. Funding and
• manpower are not readily available to adequately solve the problem. which
effectively serves to shorten the service life of many of these structures.
In view of these facts. the arguments recommending the elimination of

• expansion joints from highway bridges is quite valid-even though the economic
equations and original statement of the problem date back to 1930 •

•
11
12
 2.0 JOINTLESS BRIDGE CONCEPTS

• 2.1 Introduction
The move to eliminate expansion joints from long. multiple span highway
bridges has resulted in the development of several jointless bridge concepts
that serve to accomplish the following desirable design objectives:
• - long-term serviceability of the structure
- minimal maintenance requirements
- economical construction

• - improved aesthetic and safety considerations.

A jointless bridge concept is defined as any design procedure that
attempts to achieve the goals listed above by eliminating as many expansion

• joints as possible from the structure. The ideal jointless bridge, for
example, contains no expansion joints in the superstructure, substructure, or
deck. Ultimately, however, the length of some highway bridges is such that
the use of expansion joints becomes unavoidable.
• This section of the report summarizes a review of design concepts and
construction practices used for long. multiple span highway bridges built
without joints or with a minimum number of joints. The information gathered

• during the review indicates that the various jointless bridge concepts have
been utilized with all contemporary modes of bridge construction and are not
limited to use in any particular geographic region. Example design details

• associated with these concepts are included in this and other sections of this
report.

13
 2.2 Integral and Semi-Integral Abutment Bridges

The predominant jointless bridge concept currently used in the United

States and other countries involves fixing the girder ends to integral or
semi-integral abutments. The extent to which this concept is used is
summarized in Fig.(l).
Conventional bridge abutments, for example, usually feature battered
piles, expansion joints, and other structural releases in the design. An
example of a bridge with expansion joints is shown in Fig.(2) and details of a
conventional abutment are shown in Fig.(3).
Integral abutment bridges, however, are generally founded on one row of
flexible pilings fabricated from steel, concrete, or timber. This permits the
elimination of expansion joints, bearings, piles for horizontal earth loads
and other uneconomical details. An example of an integral abutment bridge
with flexible pilings is shown in Fig.(4) and details of typical integral
abutments are shown in Fig.(5).
Semi-integral abutments are designed to minimize the transfer of
rotational displacements to the pilings. Typical semi-integral abutment
configurations are shown in Fig. (6). Semi-integral abutments do transfer
horizontal displacements, however, and also permit the complete elimination of
expansion joints from the bridge. Rotation is generally accomplished by using
a flexible bearing surface at a selected horizontal interface in the abutment,
since allowing rotation at the pile top generally reduces pile loads (15).
When expansion joints are completely eliminated from a bridge, thermal
stresses must be relieved or accounted for in some manner. In an integral
abutment bridge with flexible pilings, these thermal stresses are transferred
from the superstructure to the substructure with a rigid connection. Various

14
 • • • • • • • • •

.....
v"l

Fig. 1 - Map of the United States Illustrating the Extent of the Use of the
Integral Abutment Bridge Concept (Shaded States).
EXPANSION JOINT BRIDGE DECK APPROACH SLAB

WlNGWALl

Fig. 2 - Cross-section of a Bridge with Expansion Joints.

16
•

• Fig. 3 - Conventional Abutment Details.

17
 BRIDGE DECK

~ .. . ... ~

INTEGRAL _otr1"'".
ABUTMENT

FLEXIBLE PI.JNG - - - - . .

Fig. 4 - Cross-section of a Bridge with Integral Abutments.

18
,

•
III

rc
+-'

•
Q)
Cl

+-'
C
Q)
E
+-'
;::,
.a
<C

•
-<
• ..
Z
~-
.-....
<
So

(.)

19
 A
...-A
~ v
.. i
....
..
~

..... .. II
~'.

.I'

-::~..

-
•••• GO ••• • •

<.I'l

....
r-

....
E
Cl.J
V'l

<tI
U
0..
>,
I-

20
 construction details have been developed to accomplish the transfer as shown

• in Fig.(7).
When steel piles are used, for example, the piles may be field-welded to
the bottom girder flange or embedded in the pile cap. A positive connection
to the girder ends is usually provided by vertical and transverse reinforcing
• steel which allows for a full transfer of temperature variation and live load
rotational displacements to the flexible pilings.
Most states prefer to use either steel or concrete piles with integral

• abutment bridges, while the use of timber piles is limited to seven states
(36). Iowa, for example, uses timber piles for some integral abutment bridges
less than 200 feet in length. If the length of the bridge exceeds 150 feet,

• however, the top portion of the pile which is embedded in the abutment is
wrapped with a 1/2 to 1 inch thick padding material as shown in Fig.(8). This
allows some rotation of the abutment and serves to reduce the bending stresses
in the pile •
• Horizontal forces at the abutments that are transferred to the piles may
be handled with the following pile configurations: bending about the strong
axis, bending about weak axis, and the provision of predrilled oversized holes

• to reduce pile stresses. Most states orient the piles such that bending
occurs about the weak axis (37).
North Dakota, for example, began building integral abutment bridges with

• the piles oriented for strong-axis bending, and found that cracking occurred
at the beam-abutment interface. On later bridges of this type built in North
Dakota, the piles were oriented for weak-axis bending. The greater
flexibility of the pile group eliminated the cracking problem at the abutments •

• Pile orientation may affect the treatment of fixity conditions at the

abutments for purposes of analysis. Most states assume a pinned condition at

21
 .--
ro
s-
en
..,ClJ
c:
......
.--
ro
u

en
.....
u.
:~.
_-"".:...~_,.P ...
ClO ..
_~~iii .. ~.~ ,....•: :.
O,,?: :.I,i:.~.
".4- ,.
~: "0 :1. /'10,. '. <: .... "":"~. --

22
•

•
PILE CAP
•
'~--rFLEXIBLE MATERIAL
"""

",'

•
V-TIMBER PILE
~

•
y

•
Fig. 8 - Timber Pile Detail Used in Iowa .

•
23
the abutments (15), and use a construction detail designed to eliminate moment
constraint at the joint. In the absence of a detail which allows rotation,
the appropriate assumption depends largely on the relative stiffness of the
pile group and the configuration of the end of the superstructure.
One fairly common practice used with integral abutment bridges is the
provision of predrilled oversize holes for the pilings as shown in Fig.(9).
The states that use this detail assume that pile stresses are relieved and
allowable lengths of integral abutment bridges are increased by driving the
piles through predrilled holes into the ground (38). Once the piles have been
driven, the voids around the piles are usually filled with dry sand or pea
gravel to prevent the backfill material from falling into the hole.
Various depths of the predrilled oversize hole are required by the states
using them with integral abutment bridges. Iowa, for example, requires a
minimum depth of 8 feet for integral abutment bridges longer than 130 feet.
Other states require depths of up to 20 feet or more.
Predrilled oversize holes may also be used to minimize downdrag forces
when used in compressive soils or to prevent premature bearing from the
resistance of the fill material. Some states, such as California, use
predrilled oversize holes to minimize the effects of elastic shortening when
used with prestressed concrete integral abutment bridges.
Development of integral abutment bridges began on an experimental basis
during the 1930's in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia (9,16,17).
At first, these bridges were relatively short, ranging in length from 50 to
100 feet. Because rational design guidelines were not available, any
subsequent increase in allowable length was based empirically on reports of
successful performance of prototypes in the field. As a result, each highway

24
 £ ABUTMENT
I
• r ----- r-------~

ir=====
• tj:=::==r---------~
Li------
•
I

,. l L,
I I

i !
I
II
I BonOH
~g";,;,,.~~~r-: -!-~I"IIIII!l_i:-.-L_--:OF FOOTI NG
• FILL THE VOID AROUND
...
.,'
PILING WITH DRY SAND
:-.. UP TO BOTTOM OF FOOTING

PRE-DRILLED OVERSIZED HOLE

•

• Fig. 9 - Typical Predrilled Oversize Hole Detail.

25
agency has developed its own unique length limitations and other design
criteria for their integral abutment bridges.
New South Wales (Australia), for example, currently limits integral
abutment bridges to lengths of 63 feet (steel) and 176 feet (prestressed
concrete). In contrast, Tennessee generally limits the lengths of integral
abutment bridges to 400 feet (steel) and 800 feet (concrete). A summary of
the length limits specified by the various highway agencies is given in Table
(l) •

In 1980, a FHWA Technical Advisory (18) was issued recommending the

following length limits for integral abutment bridges: 300 feet (steel), 500
feet (poured-in-place concrete). and 600 feet (prestressed concrete). This,
Technical Advisory points out, however. that these lengths may be increased
based on successful past experience with longer bridges of this type. These
tentative FHWA length recommendations have indeed been exceeded by some
highway agencies. notably Tennessee and Missouri.
The safe length of integral abutment bridges is controlled by the
following factors; weather conditions, soil conditions; and the ultimate
vertical load-carrying capacity of the piles, which can be reduced by large
lateral displacements due to thermal loading. Full-scale field testing and
sophisticated. rational design methods have not been commonly used as a basis
for establishing allowable lengths of integral abutment bridges. The use of
empirical observations as a design basis has resulted in wide variations in
design criteria among the various highway agencies.
Most states. for example. use a traditional analysis based on statics to
estimate the stresses in the pilings.' But the problem of the laterally loaded
pile is more complex. since it involves the interaction between a semi-rigid
structural element and the embedding soil. The problem is further complicated

26
•
Table l. Length Limits For Bridges Wi th Integral Abutments (feet)

• Highway Prestressed Poured-in-Place

Agency Steel Concrete Concrete

l. Alaska 300 416

• 2. Arizona 253 404 330

3. Cal iforni a 240 230 320

4. Colorado 200 400 400

• 5.
6.
Connecticut
Georgia
245
300 600 600
7• Idaho 200 400 400

Iowa 265 265

• 8.
9. Indiana 150
10. Kansas 300 300 500
11. Kentucky 300 300

• 12. Missouri 500 600

13. Montana 300 350 350

14. Nebraska 300 300

• 15.
16.
New Mexico
New York 305
17. North Dakota 350 450 350
18. Ohi 0 300 300 300
• 19. Oklahoma 200 200 200
20. Oregon 400 400
2l. South Dakota 320 450 450

• 22.
23.
Tennessee
Utah
400
300
800
300
800

24. Vennont 150

27
 Table 1. (cont.) Length Limits For Bridges With Integral Abutments (feet)

Highway Prestressed Poured-in-Place

Agency Steel Concrete Concrete
25. Virginia 242 454
26. Washington 400

27. Wisconsin 200 300 300

28. Wyoming 300 500 500

29. U.S.Region 15 300 270

30. FHWA 300 600 SOD

3l. Ontario (Canada) 120 150

32. Victoria (Australia) 650

33. Queensland (Australia) 328
34. New South Wales
(Australia) 63 89 176
35. New Zealand 446 150

28
•
because of the non-homogeneity of most natural soils and the disturbance to

• the soils caused during the installation of the piles.

In addition to the erratic limits for the allowable lengths of integral
abutment bridges, design guidelines are also lacking for treatment of other
essential components such as approach slabs, wingwalls, backfill, and
• provisions for drainage. As a result, several states have encountered some
problems with their integral abutment bridges. Typical problems include:

• backfill settling into the void between the abutment and fill when
the bridge contracts,
settling of roadway fill under the approach slabs due to traffic
compaction,
undermining of the abutments due to drainage at the bridge ends,
• movement at the abutment caused by elastic shortening of prestressed
concrete bridges,
cracking of wingwalls due to rotation and contraction of the
superstructure •

• Many of the states that are currently building integral abutment bridges
have effectively solved these problems, however. For example, provision of a
reinforced concrete approach slab tied to the bridge deck, with a roadway

• expansion joint placed over a sleeper slab located about 20 to 50 feet from
the bridge, eliminates settlement due to traffic compaction and backfill
settling into the void left when the bridge contracts.
Elastic shortening problems have been solved by some states by pouring
• the wingwalls after the bridge has shortened or by using predrilled oversize
holes. Undermining and other erosion problems have been eliminated by using
cohesive backfill to hinder free drainage. Backwall cracking due to rotation
and contraction has been reduced or eliminated by orienting the piles for
• weak-axis bending or by using predrilled oversize holes to reduce stresses.

29
 Other states have avoided problems by paying careful attention when
placing the piles, which is more critical than with conventional abutments.
And at least two states have used a corrugated metal pressure-relief system
behind the backwall to reduce passive earth pressures on the abutment and to
help reduce the formation of void spaces caused by contraction of the
superst ructu re.
Although integral abutment bridges have been used successfully in the
United States and other countries since the 1930's, comprehensive design
details for bridges of this type are non-existent. Establishment of a
complete set of design guidelines would be a beneficial asset to the states
that currently build integral abutment bridges and to those states that are
considering the adoption of the integral abutment bridge concept.

2.3 Link-slab and Plank-type Bridges

Two variations of the integral abutment bridge concept have been used
extensively in Australia and New Zealand. One advantage inherent in the
integral abutment concept is that it encourages the use of continuous girders.
The link-slab and plank-type concepts, however, take another approach to
eliminating expansion joints from multiple span highway bridges by using
simply-supported girders covered with a reinforced concrete or asphaltic
concrete overlays.
Link-slab bridges are built with simply~supported steel girders that are
rigidly connected at the piers and abutments. A typical construction sequence
of a link-slab bridge is shown in Fig. (10) and is described as follows. Once
the piles have been placed, the steel girders (standard rolled sections with
shear connectors and vertical end plates) are placed between the piers and
rest on temporary supports and fonnwork. Short lengths, or "links", of the

30
•

• 80
." 2 ~
,, l2 ) I
,,
" ,,
" - ,

•
I I '

SEQUENCE Of' POURING

• j
} J

][ trm:tJn
I
I o. "
, I :, : I
I I I

·
I
I I

•
I I
I I I

··
I I
I
I I
I
I I

....------"
,._u..., ("_ J_,
I • •
,J.-_•• _~
I

""" ______ .8
'----' ~--~ _----.-~

$= =t

i
i
• If 2

•
ERECTION SEQUENCE

• • r T ~7IrrTr"I"TIlT r-'"' lITI

AS B. 2(f~ 6{ with welded studs

':1 '==

DESIGN DE.TAILS

•
Fig. 10 - Construction Sequence and Details of a
Link-slab Bridge (Australia).

31
deck slab are then poured monolithically with concrete pier caps. This
encases the ends of the girders over the piers and at the abutments.
When the formwork and other supports are removed, the girder dead load is
carried through the shear connectors at the end plates into the pier caps.
Moments are carried by compression in the bottom flanges of the girders, end
plates, and pier caps. Tensile forces are transferred from the top flanges
through vertical shear connectors into the reinforced concrete slab. The
remainder of the deck is then poured to link the slab sections together,
making it continuous for all loads except girder dead load (19).
Completely jointless link-slab bridges have been built in lengths up to
160 feet (16). For longer bridges of this type, a cantilever type expansion
joint is placed near midspan, away from the piers to permit free-falling deck
drainage. A typical construction sequence for a 489 foot link-slab bridge
with a cantilever-type joint is shown in Fig.(ll).
Plank-type bridges are similarly constructed with prestressed, precast
concrete girders or "planks", made continuous with a reinforced concrete
overlay. The lengths of plank-type bridges currently range from 130-230 feet,
although this limit may be increased to 328 feet in the near future (20).
Typical details of plank-type bridges are given elsewhere in this report.

2.4 The "Flexible Arch" Concept

Although longer bridges in the Ontario, Canada, bridge system are built
continuous, expansion devices (albeit a minimum number) are specified in the
design. One notable exception is the bridge located at the Highway 420/QEW
interchange near Niagara Falls, Ontario. With a total deck length of 1963

32
• 1r--------489· Jaint l
~ j=T[
ELEVATION
r=c=rz
• ClIr- 5_r -=.1~: : .Vnf ThiS \ girder
throu;jh pier
1
AS8. 24'1 'I'

•
-

• , =
2
ftL
r
•
, 3
ERECTION SEQUENCE
hl&
r
•

• CROSS SECTION

Fig. 11 - Construction Sequence of a Link-Slab Bridge with a

Cantilever-type Expansion Joint (Australia).

33
feet, this 12-span structure (built in 1972) is the longest entirely jointless
bridge known to date.
Ordinarily, the bridges considered in this report are relatively
straight, with thermal movements of the deck accomodated along the
longitudinal axis of the bridge. The 420/QEW bridge p however. has a radius of
curvature varying from 716 to 3820 feet p accomodating any thermal movement
through arch-like flexing action of the deck in the horizontal plane (14).
Plan and elevation views of this curved bridge are shown in Fig.(12).
The bridge deck consists of tapered 4-cell concrete box girders which are
prestressed (post-tensioned) in both longitudinal and transverse directions.
The width of the deck is 49.5 feet, covering 12 spans which vary in length
from 100 feet to 183 feet. The piers p poured monolithically with the
footings. are round concrete columns founded on sloping steel H piles. The
abutments. similarly founded on H piles, are also connected to underlying
bedrock with vertical steel cables to effectively form a rigid A-frame in the
soil (14). Sections through the abutments are shown in Fig.(13).
The flexing action of the deck during both construction and service life
of the bridge is accomodated by floating bearings located at all pier heads.
These bearings allow free translation in the horizontal plane and rotation in
all directions (14). Reduction of bending movements monents at the
deck-abutment interface is accomplished with a pin-type connection using a
staggered arrangement of prestressing tendons and laminated rubber bearings as
shown in Fig.(!3).
According to the survey response received from the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation and Communications (21)p the performance of the 420/QEW bridge
was closely monitored for several years after being placed in service. After
noting that the movements of the bridge had become seasonally cyclic, it was

34
• • • • • • • • •

STAGE~ STAGE or STAGE m. STAGE J: • STAGE n

100' 130
30-48 . , )<}62 m

i i i
b I
I
I
i i i
B I •
b I'
I
"<:( • •

ELEVATION

Fig. 12 - 420/QEW Bridge, Plan and Elevation Views (Canada).

 I

oi~
~~i:;'
I
',~
,c;_~
(1't1~
"---
1 -I L...-.--L-...J,

BRG TYPE 0 2'",23-, 2 '~- L.AIICINATED RuBBEIl

8RG. TyPE ® 2'", Z,-, Z·· LAMINATED IlVBBEIl

BRG. T,,;>£ © 23",2 ,., 2" LA"NATEO RUBBEIl

Fig. 13 - 420/QEW Bridge, Abutment Details (Canada).

36
•
determined that the bridge was performing as designed and monitoring was

• discontinued.

2.5 The Slip-joint Concept

• The so-called slip-joint concept was used in the construction of the

Qurnah Bridge in Iraq, built during the late 1950·5 (22). This steel bridge
is 1020 feet in length and spans a large swamp area located between the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. The haunched steel girders cover nine spans in one
• continuous length, with no expansion joints provided in the steelwork.
Ordinarily, a composite deck would have been specified in the design,
with the deck acting as the top flange of the steel girders. Since the

• temperature ranges in Iraq are large, the designers used a partially composite
deck; which was designed not to carry any girder stresses but to act as sway
bracing instead.

• The deck slab was poured in 60 foot segments, with the interior 20 feet
of each panel cast compositely with the girder flanges. The outer 20 foot
segments of each panel were separated from the girders by a building-paper and
mortar slip-joint to allow relative movement between the girders and the deck.
• Although expansion joints proper were not provided in the steelwork, fibrous
joints were placed between each slab panel 0 Follow-up information concerning
the Qurnah bridge, including performance reports, are not readily available.

• A combination slip-joint/plank-type concept has been recently proposed by

Zuk (23). This concept is based on prior reports of successful use of
continuously-reinforced concrete highway pavements. With this type of
pavement, temperature movement is accommodated by small cracks that are

• developed in the slab. The proposed concept involves extending this type of

37
pavement across the bridge superstructure without using expansion joints as
shown in Fig.(14).
The deck would be carried by non-continuous girders. simply supported by
flexible bearings. At regions of high midspan moments. the girders would be
connected to the slab with shear studs to develop composite action. Near the
end of each girder, where moments are lower. a plastic-sheet slip-joint would
be provided to allow relative movement between the girders and deck slab. To
date. a bridge of exactly this type has not been built.

2.6 Abutmentless Bridges

According to the survey response received from the Australian State of
New South Wales (24). the revised de5ign code (issued in 1976) drastically
reduced the allowable lengths of jointless bridges designed by the Department
of Main Roads. The length reduction is motivated by larger shrinkage and
creep provisions and severe temperature gradient considerations incorporated
into the 1976 code revision. This code is again under revision. however. and
is expected to be moderated in accordance with findings of recent research in
this area (24). One private consulting finn. however. managed to bypass the
stringent restrictions and designed eight of these so-called "abutmentless"
bridges. An elevation view of one of these bridges, the 291 foot Coleman
Street Bridge. is shown in Fig.(15). This bridge. built with prestressed
concrete box girders. is completely jointless throughout. The abutment
details, shown in Fig.(16), illustrate the unconventional abutment
configuration that connects the ends of the bridge to the base of the piers
with prestressing strands.

38
 • • • • • • • • •

~ :::.'~'r':·'·:·:·"':·:': ....:-.-. :':'~ ",;',.; :.\....;::,!!:;.,..:,:.;: ;:"''.:;;;:':;':'.::.>:::.~'::'''';~'':;::~~.::'.;':.' :",~.::';'.:: ,",', ':, ....' :~... , ,':. .".. -.;:; ..... : ~ :"
',' .',
" ",'

. '" i I

o
w
C '
IJ:)

A - Con tin u 0 u 81 y rei nfor c e d con c ret epa verne ntan d b rid ge dec k

B - Deck anchorage, If deck Joined to pavement type other than continuously

reinforced concrete

C - Conventional abutment and pier with elastomerlc bearings

D - Simply supported beam, composite with deck only In central region
No bonding between deck and beam el •• where

Fig. 14 - Proposed View of a Bridge Using the Slip-Joint Concept (Virginia).

 Reproduced tram
best available copy.

l'8600 OWI'.d' len Contl'o' C'S

I' 17000 I + 54 GQ~ _
17000
.l a"'r ~IA"dal"d
!.".:.tlU ~'I-ICllilo~ ldampl~Ic\lldal'd
~ul hollAd,.alhn9 ,vI 9" del' C
c: 2,7% ,rade Oil (onla'ol c·!-
-•.~ .... A ..• ·.' •.'ii·-·~·:'~"L._ - J

\Vg~lhu'fd CT~ ...~~, j ~~~

~J"::;"_.~~
So" II!.
I
.shih: . '''l1d~'t)nte. t
I
\V(&fhrrc:d
'h'\\I~RAM4~F~ I
HIlI'CJ 9rcy jlJ1i~le ----J...
~
o
HII-d ,rey / ~;
,h....c L..-o- ......- -- ..........
--==;-.....,1

6 fOJ' Contr.AU level:c OH.I07 i

'cc .sheet, ~. f, ... l(l\Yahoo ,ur'acf (su
Conh'Ol C-$ 400und(I·FI
End 01 deck t dunnq collstnlCholl.
PlCt' I. 011
Abulmcnl'A'onjConlrol (-$ f. denotc~ f'ast~n1(tIC reCI· 1.on
Control C'$ ltc.1tll1qs
COI1"·ol (.$

Fig. 15 - Elevation View of an Abutmentless Bridge (Australia),

 • • • • • • • • I

I. I 170"(' ---eO

J. '2500 .1. 14.500 ~

Uti 1~i:1 I 127' Z N! 55/12'7 H·R po~t· telUlol1ll1q c.llllu In PI (.1'-4-.
~ ~;'£nd oridecJ\ each Illlcrn~1 web, ( J N!' !o5/IZ'7 Sl·n. cdblr 111

~
i.S I R L 4~' ~54 011 Rl42·4Zlon utenlal ,vel'), ~trC~Hd bolh ends. RL.2· &13 on Deck 4
Dec!, q. -
~I ! I D,c!\ ~ "l'uhnent"'" 2· 7'"
~

--.. ~-, - -.--.-. ' ~~"cB-"-"'

:..~---- .(.. 8'-
~ s!57~~*>':=:-~
f§~~ or' I / •
.... ---..- ~.=--,_._----_.-
..
11'\

r.

r·..'"'1~ .
-"':'" /
~ .....
/ ~
32'0 IZ70 GOO
.
\Jl

....~I
.,. '"
- /~ 60th Jldes of he to be formed. /
50ltolll race fo be poured on l1unllllUI11
'C
""I
!?
IJ)

~
IGmm. thlc!\ ply on previously compacted
~,"Oul1d and len In posilloll.

.....
CD
""l

------~
\II
r..

SECTION
~calc:·
® Atto and
1: 50
puaJlcl
Conh'oJ C'S
3200
1--.J
1 I
InlCl4cch0l1
- POII~-
, I
,14S I
-----.
",." /

Fig. 16 - Abutmentless Bridge Details (Australia).

42
•

• 3.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE

3.1 Tennessee
Tennessee has had extensive experience with integral and semi-integral
.. abutment bridges over the last 20 years. An estimated 1200 integral
abutment-type bridges have been constructed in Tennessee during this time
period. Typical integral and semi-integral abutment details used by the
Tennessee Department of Transportation are shown in Figs. (17) and (18) •
• According to the survey response from Tennessee. current length limits
for integral and semi-integral abutment bridge are 400 feet (steel). and 800
feet (concrete). These limits have been occasionally exceeded. however. The

• longest integral abutment bridges currently in service in Tennessee are 416

feet (steel) and 927 feet (concrete).

• 3.2 Missouri
Missouri was an early user of integral and semi-integral abutment
bridges. Criteria used in the design of these bridges have been developed
primarily from the reported success of other states. notably Tennessee. The
• maximum length limits currently specified in the Missouri Highway and
Transportation Commission bridge design manual are 500 feet (steel.
semi-integral abutment) and 600 feet (prestressed concrete, integral abutment)

• (34).

3.3 California
According to the survey response received from the California Department
• of Transportation. over 500 integral abutment bridges have been built in that
state since the 1950's. Maximum length limits specified for integral abutment

43 P~eceding page b~3Jn~

-
I
I
 Bars make deck
---- continuous
over abutment Approach
slab
~~~t--.l~'.~,~.~.~.~~~~.~.~.~~

Concrete .--I~
box girder ... .
,

Bearing
,~~rl-"- plate
I Steel I
girder !
I
"""' ,-- ./---
STEEL GIRDER CONCRETE GIRDER

Fig. 17 - Typical Integral Abutment Details (Tennessee).

44
•
Bridge deck

• Concrete _~~
, ~:: .... ::
• ... ".
:: .:
box girder ' . "0. II,.
' " .... .. . ... .."
..
· .....
'.. . ..
.. "• • 0° • • •

•
• "." It·

,.'
: tt o ••
"";"
II •

.....- - - 1 ...•:.: '.

..........- ......... ..
e, : : ••• ·1"
, ....
'..
,

.. "I
, ,
' .. ~
;~.i ~.~f:.~..
~ : L:.:..;:.I ,,~.
Abutment I'", ",... : " ' : . :
.' .
• integral with
superstnJeture
"
'
'.' : :'..
, ~ :
.. : ,= ' ... : r, ~.

.. '.., ......•......
..,.
r , ••• ".:

"
". . "' ..
,• .;" .. , . I

• 6'" it perforated
... l , ..
• " 0 "I I"

pipe underdrain
Structural
hinge

• Neoprene pad

'.. : ..
,6 ,
'."..l/I ..... : .. :' " 0
..~ .
",,," '1:1 ..

Pile cap
. .
' ... ~
...
.,':
..
';"".',,~.
,'" .
,-""I" ..
. • •• • "I _ • '. I'.. ..

. ,
. .. -
,'41:.r~·.\V 4' ~f·.;.~.;'.
...... :.~ ··,l .. ,... ,
• Piling
~ ~

•
Fig. 18 - Typical Semi-Integral Abutment Details (Tennessee),

45
bridges in California are 240 feet (steel), and 260 feet (concrete). These
length limits are often exceeded, however, and many bridges of this type have
been built in the 350-400 foot range. It is interesting to note that during
the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, integral abutment bridges suffered less
overall damage than bridges with conventional abutments (35).

3.4 North Dakota

North Dakota was another early user of integral abutments, most of which
have been built with concrete superstructures. Current length limits are 300
feet (steel), and 450 feet (prestressed concrete). Integral abutment bridges
in North Dakota have generally performed well, although two problems were
identified with early prototype bridges.
First, the superstructure was originally connected to the backwall with
dowel bars which were placed with insufficient cover. In some places, the
concrete over the dowel bars on the inside face of the backwall cracked due to
the thermal forces caused by contraction of the superstructure. Second, the
piles were originally placed with the webs parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the bridge. This orientation caused some distress in the backwall since
the piles offered relatively large resistance to longitudinal bridge
movements. The problem was eliminated when the piles were installed with the
webs perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bridge.
An interesting design feature was used in the design of one 450 foot
prestressed concrete integral abutment bridge built in 1981. This detail is
shown in Fig. (19). A special expansion joint material several inches thick
was placed behind the abutment backwall. Behind this material is a sheet of
corrugated metal. This detail is designed to reduce passive earth pressures

46.
•

•
APPROACH SLAB

•
CORRUGATED -----
• METAL

4 VOID SPACE WITH

11

INTERMITTENT PRESSURE
RELIEF STRIPS

• Fig. 19 - Pressure-relief Abutment Detail (North Dakota).

47
on the abutment and to help reduce the formation of a void space upon
contraction of the superstructure.

3.5 Ontario (Canada)

The survey response from the Ontario Ministry of transportation and
Communications (OMTC) indicates that several jointless bridge concepts are
currently being employed in that province. Concrete integral abutment
bridges. for example. have been built in Ontario since the early 1950's (21).
Length limits for this type of bridge are 120 feet (precast, prestressed
concrete) and 150 feet (poured-in-place, post-tensioned concrete).

3.6 New Zealand

New Zealand's experience with jointless bridges began in the 1930 s. 1
At
first, relatively short concrete bridges were built with integral-type
abutments. By the 1950's, integral abutment bridges were commonplace in New
Zealand, and standardized design drawings for concrete bridges of this type
were developed by the New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development (NZMWD)
for routine use by their bridge engineers. A typical standardized design
drawing for 100 foot concrete integral abutment bridge is shown in Fig. (20).
Although no detailed in~ormation concerning the performance of integral
abutment bridges in New Zealand (i.e. bridge inspection reports) was included
with the response to the survey questionnaire, the NZMWD did note that no
reports of any problems at the abutments of their integral abutment bridges
are on fil e.
NZMWD found it necessary to strengthen several existing concrete integral
abutment bridges (by prestressing) for exceptionally heavy loads. One of the
bridges strengthened in this manner is the Waiwaka Terrace Bridge. located in

48
•

• "0
c::
ttl

ttl
OJ
N

3
OJ
Z

• +-'
OJ
OJ
LL.

o
o
~

til
OJ

• Ol
"0
~
CO
+-'
c::
OJ
E
+-'
~
.Q
c::e
• ttl
~
O'l
OJ
+-'
c::
......
~
o
4-

• Ol
c::

<II

•
OJ
Cl

"'0
OJ
N

"'0
~
ttl
"0
c::
ttl

•
+-'
V1

o
N

INeHU j ., , .;_.
. . .
• ' " ",",,,1-,, "
,I .
ID
'"
I~ It
,,1"'1,,1 'II ,'t.,. , ,It" I! ,,,;'
.....
LL.

•
49
New Plymouth. This bridge is a concrete tee-beam integral abu,tment bridge
with an overall length of 152 feet. Although some prestressing shortening was
observed during the prestressing procedure. no evidence of cracking or other
distress at the abutments was evident.
A few bridges of the semi-integral abutment type have been built in New
Zealand since the 1960's. A majority of these bridges are built with precast,
prestressed double-core concrete units. The length of bridges of this type is
usually limited to 230 feet, although the Kauaeranga bridge has an overall
length of 446 feet. Details of this bridge are shown in Figs. (21) and (22).
The NZMWD notes in the survey response that their semi-integral abutment
bridges and integral abutment bridges have been very economical due to the
simplicity of abutment design and construction and the elimination of
expansion joints. Although no problems have been reported with the jointless
bridges in New Zealand, the NZMWO has decided to monitor the performance of
the Kauaeranga bridge (built in 1986) before increasing length limits of
bridges of that type.

3.7 Queensland (Australia)

The Queenland Main Roads Department (QMRD) has been constructing one type
of precast, prestressed concrete jointless bridge since 1975. With this type
of bridge. the girders are cast in single span lengths (or "planks") and fixed
to piers and abutments with anchor bolts. Spaces between girder ends over
interior piers are filled with cement mortar. while spaces between girder ends
and subgrade concrete relief slabs at the abutments are filled with
compressible material. No expansion devices are used. Details of typical
connections at piers and abutments are shown in Figs. (23) and (24). A re-
inforced concrete overlay. which extends past each abutment, is then placed

50
 • • • • • • • •

13b) 7/4

I
, !
I I
rOUTMEN' ·
Pl\.. E'i!l
PIl:!.1t e
t"eH ~ PlEQ. D " PlEQ. E P1EQ. F to eurME~i G
PI...u.

.
IJ'l
.....
----
f-610o.0. SiEE\.
PIPe (VERTICAL) "' --- - I
-
---- tliO 0.0. ~"TteL
~ PILE3 PEQ
ABUT.
I I ~b10 o.o.ma.. V PlP~«;)

2~ ~Q
PtPn-..........

e -25"",
ox .
j I
.
j
I

II
.. e.qm
o;ij)PRO\ I j
-2~m

AP~
u u

Fig. 21 - Elevation of Kauaeranga Bridge (New Zealand). Span lengths are in millimeters.
 .. -t-.+~-~_._=':;':;-;;'=--=_._=l--~E1'lT
OII\PHQA.G\j! ---+-
i FOQ.MYIOQ"

I
i "lClO _
\
\, r /
-

,., IBI ~ ~\,,;,...-----i­

P1LU

SEC TrON AT ABUTMENT

Fig. 22 - Kauaeranga Bridge, Semi-Integral Abutment Details

(New Zealand). All dimensions are in millimeters.

52
•

• 30 dap sowcuf filled

with bitumen.

B
• 10 mm Ccmpresslbk filler
40 dlO J( fC(] deep , .
- r - - DeCk Unit

fb~~ team cere

I' '. ."
C~, gr"Ouf .
(/:2miv) '.' •. '.'
IOmm min cemen f morlor
• HZ4 If 850 fo."nq: i?O.
boIf grode'" 6 , .
,.. '....
seating. 1-"3 mir.

7S cia cered hole -.'-+----1

.::..:•....~.
•
) "a·· '.,
Fret!! dr'Otning gronulor.., ~""W"'--r~-,.-q-..J':.-"""
rnofuial OS specified"7'"
... '. "
j .' .
150 no fines'
300~ 3f.X);rc ..
Concrete block.. as '. . 75 dlo 'IIVeI:.{J holes OJ ZoOm crs
• specified. OpPf'OX befvv«n piles

•
Z. rJ
ANCHORAGE DETAIL

• Fig. 23 - Typical Plank-slab Bridge Abutment Details (Australia).

All dimensions are in millimeters).

53
 I Pier

D.W.S.\ II 7Sx 75" 6 wash.,.s

I/ It ,/ I
l- , I #' 7
I j,Q I ,jIJ
I' J c_"'cnt mo,./a,.
... !I= Deck U"il I 1:2 c_mellt Sroul ..: F-
100
n "
",
I
~ D_ck Ullif

10".". ",ill ce", .111 mo,.lo,. - clot) '-- I-- 7S diG cond horlS
"O""j (f: J",;x) ~ MU,850 HoD. Bolls
I: 2 c."'c"t 9rovl
li50 150

ANCHORAGC DeTAil

Fig. 24 - Plank-slab gridg~ Pier Details (Australia).

All dimensions in millimeters.

54
 to make the bridge continuous. Piers and abutments are founded on single rows

• of piles as shown in Fig. (25), and an elevation view of a typical plank-slab

bridge is shown in Fig. (26).
According to the survey response received from the QMRO, approximately

• 200 bridges of this type have been constructed since 1975. The design of the
precast. prestressed girders has become standardized in Queensland.
Typically. the length of these bridges ranges from 130 to 230 feet in overall
length. The QMRD is currently considering increasing the allowable length
• limit to 328 feet. based on observed behavior of older bridges and
publications that outline experience with jointless bridges in the United
States (20).

•
3.8 New South Wales (Australia)
Since 1963, 49 jointless bridges have been built in New South Wales.

• Although there are some exceptions, most of the recently built jointless
bridges are widenings or duplications of short concrete bridges built between
1930 and 1960. 41 of these bridges are of the integral abutment type and are
built according to the following length limits: 176 feet (precast. prestressed
• concrete), 164 feet (link slab). 89 feet (poured-in-place concrete), and 63
feet (steel). The other eight jointless bridges were built using the
so-called "abutmentless" bridge concept in lengths up to 291 feet.

•
55
 DIsql~ Lood500kN ELEVATION SECTION
ABUTMENT A
SCALE C
~ Abut.

M.R.O Aoc:M Sollll".ouqI'I

Type I
I I Not III1'u, job)
~
NS. ___'I
r-l--1200 1.0 COnc:rel'll...:rJ
t::J C~II"d." 'c::::J
L M RO. Roell ~Ilthrouon
1'yDe1 (Nor In tl'll, JObI
ttlr

ELEVATION SE<.;f10N
ee'91 Fo.M:ItllY1 aeorlrlQF'ruSU/"l-eOOkF'o. ABUTMENT 8
SCALE C
Pier

,,~ OCt. PSC. Pill'

DesqI Pl1e Load 750kN ELEVATION SECTION

TYPE PIERS
SCALE C

Fig. 25 - Pier and Abutment Details (Australia).

56
 • • • • • • • • •

([) Denote, ',ud beorinQ

® 00 ®,® ®i® 0®
I

U1
"-J

14.8~O I~OOO 15.000 15.000 14_8~O

Fig. 26 - Elevation View of a Typical Plank-slab Bridge (Australia).

All dimensions are in millimeters.

~
58
•
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

• Through the literature review and survey questionnaires sent to select

highway agencies in the United States and other countries, several jointless
bridge concepts have been identified and described. Responses to the survey

• questionnaire show that the devleopment and implementation of these concepts

is a viable and cost-effective solution to the expansion joint dilemma. For
several of these concepts, however, it may not be practical to apply them on a
large-scale basis.
• The 420/QEW bridge and the Qurnah bridges, for example, are the longest
known jointless bridges to date. While the lengths attained are quite
favorable, the concepts used to acheive these lengths~namely the flexible arch

• and slip-joint concepts-have not had a wide range of application.

In the first case, the design approach used with the 420/QEW bridge is
not commonly applicable since highway structures with that length and
curvature are rare. In the second case - the Qurnah bridge - detailed design
• drawings, design assumptions, and performance reports are currently
unavailable. A third case, namely the eight bridges built using the so-called
"abutmentless" bridge concept, is another example of a jointless bridge
• concept that has been used only on a limited basis.
The most viable method of eliminating costly expansion joints from
highway structures is the utilization of the integral abutment bridge concept.

• Integral abutment bridges have been used on a large-scale basis in the United
States and other countries since the 1930's. In some cases, integral abutment
bridges have become popular enough to prompt highway agencies to develop
standardized design drawings for routine use by bridge engineers.

• The highway agencies that currently use the integral abutment bridge
concept have indicated in the survey responses that these bridges are

59
economical, they perform well, and offer simplicity in design and
construction. In addition, integral abutment - type bridges are compatible
with the commonly used methods of highway bridge construction-and their use is
not limited to any particular geographic region. Clearly, the integral
abutment bridge concept is the most promising solution to the expansion joint
problem that is feasible on a wide-scale basis.

60
•
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
• This study has concluded that integral abutment bridges are a popular and
effective solution to the expansion joint problem. Today more than half of
the State Highway agencies have incorporated the use of integral abutment

• bridges into their highway systems.

Length limits for integral abutment bridges are a function of local soil
and weather conditions. At the present, design guidelines that take these
factors into account are nonexistent in Maryland. A comprehensive set of
• rational, research-based design guidelines would be of great benefit to the
Maryland State Highway Administration. Such guidelines would include design
criteria concerning piles, approach slabs, wingwalls, backfill, drainage
• provisions, and the safe length limits of integral abutment bridges based on
Maryland's soil and weather profiles. A nonlinear finite element model that
is being calibrated and verified in a project sponsored by the FHWA could be

• used in the study to define safe length limits and other design details for
integral abutment bridges in the State of Maryland.

61
62
•
REFERENCES
• 1. "Bridge Deck Joint-Sealing Systems, Evaluation and Performance
Specification," NCHRP Report 204, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washi ngton, D.C., June 1979.
2. Baboian, Robert, "Corrosion-A National Problem," Standardization News,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., March 1986.
• 3. Bridge Inspector1s Training Manual 70, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Corrected Reprint 1979.
4. Watson, Ronald, and Busch, Gary, "Finger Joints: A Historical Review of
Design and Performance,'1 Proceedings of the Third Annual International
Bridge Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1986.
• 5. Purvis, R., and Berger, R., "Bridge Joint Maintenance," Transportation
Research Record 899, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1983.
6. Wolchuk, Roman, "New Orthotropic Deck for the Benjamin Franklin Bridge in
Philadelphia - Design and Construction Aspects," Proceedings of the Third

• 7.
Annual International Bridge Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1986.
"Highway Accident Report - Truck Engine Fuel Tank Puncture by Bridge
Repair Plate, Diesel Spill and Multiple Vehicle Skidding Collisions.
Interstate Route 10, Lake Charles, Louisiana, August 27, 1981," National
Transportation Safety Board. Bureau of Accident Investigation,
Washington, D.C., July 1982.
• 8. Koster, Waldemar. Expansion Joints in Bridges and Concrete Roads,
Transatlantic Arts Inc., New York, New York. 1969.
9. McCullough, C., "Cost Economies in Concrete Bridges," Highway Research
Board Proceedings, National Research Council, Washington, D. C•• December
1930.
• 10. AASHTO Maintenance Manual 1976, American Associations of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., February 1976.
11. Guide for Bridge Maintenance Management 1980, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C •• 1980.

• 12. Britton. H., "Continuous Integral Deck Construction - A Rational Approach

to Placing Structural Deck on Three-Span Continuous Bridge Units,"
Highway Research Board Bulletin 362. National Academy of Sciences -
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1962.
13. Culp, J., and Tinklenberg, G., IIInterim Report on Effcts of Corrosion on
Bridges of Unpainted A588 Steel and Painted Steel Types,lI Michigan
• Department of State Highways and Transportation. Testing and Research
Division. Lansing, Michigan, June 1980.

63
14. Campbell, T., Francis, l., and Richardson. B•• "A Long Curved
Post-tensioned Concrete Bridge Without Expansion Joints." Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 2. Ontario, Canada. 1975.
15. Wolde-Tinsae, A., Greimann. L•• and Johnson, B., "Performance of Integral
Bridge Abutments ,0' IABSE Proceedings P-58/83. International Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Zurich. Switzerland, February 1983.
16. Addis. Bo, General Manager - Bridges, Victoria Road Construction
Authority, Victoria. Melbourne. Australia, written correspondence. April
8, 1986.
17. Cundall. Oliver, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington. New
Zealand, written correspondence, March 3, 1986.
18. "Integral, No-Joint Structures and Required provisions for Movement,"
FHWA Technical Advisory T5140 13, U.S. Department of Transportation,
0

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C .• January 28. 1980.

19. Fried, A., "Jointless Bridges - A New Constructional Method," Australian
Road Research Board Proceedings, Department of Main Roads, New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia. Vol. 3, Part 2.1966.
20. Fenwick, Jo, Deputy Bridge Engineer, Queensland Main Roads Department,
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia~ written correspondence, April 8, 1986.
21. Richardson. Bo. Head. Procedures Section, Ministry of Transportation and
Communications. Ontario, Canada, written correspondence, April 17, 1986
and May 21, 1986.
22. Stephenson, H., "Nine Span Bridge But No Expansion Joints," Engineering,
Vol. 190, No. 4924, london. England. September 2, 1960.
23. Zuk., W., "Joint1ess Bridges," Virginia Highway and Transportation
Research Council, Charlottesville. Virginia. June 1981.
24. Cable. W., Department of Main Roads. New South Wales, Sydney, Australia,
written correspondence, June 16. 1986.
25. Wasserman, Edward. "Joint1ess Steel Bridges." Proceedings of the 1986
National Engineering Conference, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois. 1986.
26. Tennessee Structures Memorandum 045. Tennessee Department of
Transportation, Nashville, Tennessee, February 2, 1982.
27. Loveall~ Clellon. IDJointless Bridge Decks," Civil Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers. New York. New York, Vol. 55, No. 11, November
1985.
28. Podolny Jr., W. and Muller, Jean, Construction and Design of Prestressed
Concrete Segmental Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, New York. New York, 1982.

64
•
29. Fletcher, Malcolm, "Orwell Bridge: UK's largest Prestress~dConcrete
• Span," Concrete International, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, Vol. 3, No.8, August 1981.
30. "Bonners Ferry Bri dge, Boundary County, Idaho," Uni ted States Stee 1
Bridge Report ADUSS 88-8524-01, United States Steel, Pittsburgh, Pa ••
June 1985.

• 31. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., Thirteenth
Edition, 1983.
32. Podolny Jr., Walter, "The Cause of Cracking in Post-Tensioned Concrete
Box Girder Bridges and Retrofit Procedures," PCI Journal, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois, Vol. 30, No.2, March 1985.
• 33. Stewart, Carl, "Annual Movement Study of Bridge Deck Expansion Joints,"
State of California, Division of Highways. Bridge Department Research and
Development Report, June 1969.
34. Bridge Design Manual, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission.

• Jefferson. Missouri. Sections. 3.41. 3.42, 3.55. Revised Edition. March

1985.
35. Stewart, Carl, "long Highway Structures Without Expansion Joints."
California Department of Transportation. Sacramento. California. 1983.
36. Wolde-Tinsae, A.M., Greimann. l., and Yang. P•• "Nonlinear Pile Behavior
• in Integral Abutment Bridges. Final Report. DOT project HR-227.
11

ISU-ERI-Ames, Iowa, February 1982.

37. Yang, P.S., Wolde-Tinsae, A.M •• and Greimann, L.F., "Non-linear-Finite
Element Study of Piles in Integral Abutment Bridges," ERI Project 1501,
ISU-ERI-Ames-83068, Ames, Iowa. Sepember 1982.

• 38. Yang, P.S., Wolde-Tinsae, A.M., and Greimann. l.F., "Effects of

Predrilling and layered Soils on Piles," Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering. ASCE, Vol. III. No.1. January 1985 •

•
65