Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

A rational design approach for prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridges

Murat Dicleli
*

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Structural Ofce, Computer App. Section, Mezzanine Floor, 301 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, Ont., Canada L2R 7R4 Received 10 March 1998; received in revised form 29 June 1998; accepted 5 July 1998

Abstract This paper presents a rational design approach for prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridges. An analysis procedure and simplied analytical models are proposed for the design of integral bridges. The proposed design methodology is developed considering the actual behavior of integral bridges and load distribution among their various components. The methodology recommends the analysis of integral bridges for each construction stage. The earth pressure forces acting on integral bridge abutments are formulated in correlation with the effects of temperature variation. Some important design considerations for various integral bridge components are also highlighted. The benets of using the proposed analysis method for the design of integral bridges are discussed. It was concluded that it may be possible to obtain more sound and economical designs for integral bridges using the proposed design method. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Integral bridges; Prestressed concrete; Design

1. Introduction Expansion joints on bridges have provided considerable maintenance problems for transportation agencies [15]. Therefore, the economic and functional advantages, and improved durability of integral bridges, in lieu of expansion joints and bearings, are generally recognized by bridge engineers. Thus, recently, in many parts of North America, integral bridges are considered as an alternative to traditional jointed bridges with separate heavy abutments [1,2,4,68]. Integral bridges are single-span or multiple-span bridges with a continuous deck and a movement system composed primarily of abutments supported on exible piles. A typical two-span, prestressed-concrete-girder, integral bridge is shown in Fig. 1. In these types of bridges, the road surfaces are continuous from one approach embankment to the other and the abutments are cast integral with the deck. The effect of forces parallel to the bridge longitudinal direction is minimized by

* Tel.: 1-905-704-2392; Fax: li@usa.net

1-905-704-2060; E-mail: mdicle-

designing the abutments and their foundations exible and less resistant to longitudinal movements of the structure. Accordingly, the abutments are built shorter to reduce the restraint provided by the backll soil to the longitudinal movement of the bridge. Only a single row of steel H piles is generally used to provide vertical support to abutments and minor resistance to longitudinal forces. The integral bridges considered in this paper are assumed to have a slab-on-prestressed-concrete-girder deck. The connection between the bridge deck and the abutment can be rigid or semi-rigid depending on the detailing of joint reinforcement. Elastomeric bearings are used under each girder at intermediate supports. The reinforced concrete columns at intermediate supports may either be free standing or rigidly connected to a reinforced concrete cap-beam supporting the superstructure. The columns are assumed to be supported either by shallow foundations or deep foundations with two or more rows of piles. In the absence of rigorous theoretical and experimental studies and a rational design methodology, there are self-imposed rules for the design of integral bridges. The current design rules used by many structural engin-

0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 8 0 - 7

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

231

Fig. 1.

Typical two span integral bridge.

eers for integral bridge design contain unnecessary assumptions. The analytical models used for the analysis of integral bridges fail to reect the actual behavior of the structure and the effects of several loading conditions. Considering these limitations, a design procedure for integral bridges is proposed in this paper.

2. Limitations of conventional design approach In this section the conventional design approach for integral bridges, currently used by many structural engineers in North America and Europe, is briey introduced. Its limitations attributed to the analytical models used for the analysis of the structure and design procedure are discussed. A typical three-span integral abutment bridge and its conventional analytical models are shown in Fig. 2. The structure is analyzed only for the nal stage assuming a completed structure. The second sketch from the top in Fig. 2 shows the continuous beam model used to analyze the structure for the design of the bridge deck only [7,9 13]. The piers and abutments in the actual structure are replaced with simple supports in the model. Thus, the continuity of the structure is totally neglected at pier and abutment locations for the deck design. A continuous frame model is only considered if specically the design of deckabutment continuity connections is required [9 11,13]. The weight of the concrete slab, girders, diaphragm beams and superimposed dead load and live load are considered for the design of the deck. In Fig. 2, the third sketch from the top shows the conventional analytical model used for the design of deck abutment joints assuming full composite action between the slab, girders and abutments. The analytical model does not consider a complete frame action since the piers are modeled as simple roller supports. The effect of con-

Fig. 2.

Conventional analytical models for deck design.

tinuity is considered only at the deckabutment joints [9,10,13]. Furthermore, the model does not reect the three-dimensional effect of lateral loads on the piers, abutments, wing-walls and piles. A 3-D model is still necessary to analyze the structure for the effects of such

232

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

loads. The weight of the slab, girders, diaphragm beams, superimposed dead loads, live load, earth pressure and effect of temperature variations are considered for the design of the deckabutment joints. However, the correlation between the temperature variation and the magnitude of earth pressure is neglected in the design. The deckabutment joints are designed by conservatively assuming a maximum passive earth pressure condition at the abutments. The detailing of abutmentdeck continuity connections are standardized for a variety of range of applications [14]. Therefore, in most cases, the analytical model shown in Fig. 2 for the deckabutment joint design is not considered for the analysis of the structure. The structure is modeled as a simply supported continuous beam. The full design is completed based on that model. Nevertheless, the detailing may in fact vary depending on the type of loads applied to the structure. For example, seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete rigid frame structures usually require joint details that must have some level of rotational ductility for energy dissipation purposes [15]. Consequently, the standard reinforcement details for abutmentdeck continuity connections may not be applicable if the structure is built in an area with high risk of seismic activity. The joint reinforcement details may also vary as a function of the structure geometry. In the design of piers supporting integral bridge decks, the unbalanced horizontal earth pressure forces resulting from unsymmetrical abutment congurations are assumed to be transferred directly to the approach embankments with no effect on piers. Accordingly, the piers are designed for vertical reaction loads transferred from the superstructure and for lateral loads directly applied on the piers. Obviously, this design approach is limited to some simple cases where the structure is fully symmetrical and the soil pressures at both sides of the bridge are in equilibrium. The effect of axial load in the deck, resulting from earth pressure forces at both sides of the structure, is also neglected in the current design approach. The axial force applied to the bridge deck may cause extra shortening of the prestress concrete girders due to elastic deformation and creep. This may lead to a reduction in the effective prestressing force in the girders. The current design practice allows for the design of pile-abutment connection joints to develop full continuity. Consequently, bending moments at pile ends are produced due to temperature variations and vehicular trafc. These bending moments may be high enough to initiate plastic yielding of steel piles [3,1620]. The repetitive variation of temperature and the effect of live load may cause low cycle fatigue in the piles [3]. A hinge connection detail between the piles and the abutment may prevent such a potentially destructive problem.

In the conventional design approach, the effect of seismic forces is usually neglected assuming that integral bridges are not prone to such forces because of their continuity [9,10]. However, earthquake excitations may cause remarkable rotations and settlements at the abutment foundations due to the exible nature of single-row pile arrangement. Therefore, in some cases, a rigorous analysis may be required to assess the capacity of the structure to resist seismic forces.

3. Feasibility considerations The foundation soil condition is an important factor in the feasibility study of integral bridges. The primary criterion of the decision-making process for integral bridge construction is the requirement of a single row of exible piles to support the abutments. Accordingly, where the load-bearing strata is not deep enough to allow piles longer than at least 5 m in length, the site may not be considered suitable for integral bridges. If the soil is susceptible to slip failure, liquefaction, sloughing or boiling, integral bridges are not suitable for that site. In selecting the bridge types, consideration is given to the total length of the bridge, type of deck, type of trafc, location, and any unusual characteristics such as skew, curvature or grade. Integral bridges are generally suitable for total span lengths below 100 m [13]. The limitation on length is mainly a function of the soil properties and seasonal temperature variations. It is imposed considering the ultimate resistance of abutments and piles to longitudinal movements and serviceability of the structure. Integral abutment bridges with skews greater than 35 are not considered suitable for construction due to the non-uniform distribution of loads and difculties in establishing the movements and their directions [13].

4. Proposed design method 4.1. Temperature variation and soilstructure interaction The earth pressure coefcient is a function of the displacement or rotation of the earth-retaining structure. An integral bridge will experience elongation and contraction due to temperature variations during its service life. A very small displacement of the bridge away from the backll soil can cause the development of active earth pressure conditions [21,22]. Therefore, when the bridge contracts due to a decrease in temperature, active earth pressure will be developed behind the abutment. When the bridge elongates due to an increase in temperature, the intensity of the earth pressure behind the abutment is a function of the magnitude of the bridge displacement

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

233

Fig. 3. Variation of passive earth pressure coefcient as a function of structure displacement towards backll.

effect of positive temperature variation on the magnitude of earth pressure coefcient. The structure model is obtained by conservatively neglecting the resistance of the piers, abutments and piles to the longitudinal movement of the structure. In this top sketch, Ld is the span length of the bridge and kd is the axial stiffness of the modeled bridge deck. The model is considered to have an effective width, we, equal to the spacing of girders. The second sketch from the top shows the free displacement, d0, of the bridge deck due to a positive temperature variation neglecting the restraint provided by the soil. The sketch at the bottom illustrates the nal displacement, d, of the bridge deck considering the combined effects of positive temperature variation and the earth pressure force, Fs, behind the abutment. The axial stiffness of the modeled bridge deck is expressed as follows: kd 2Eg(Ag nAs) Ld (2)

towards the backll soil. The actual earth pressure coefcient, K, may change between at rest, K0, and passive, KP, earth pressure coefcients depending on the amount of displacement. Past researchers obtained the variation of earth pressure coefcient as a function of structure displacement from experimental data and nite element analyses [22,23]. For practical purposes, this variation is assumed as linear as shown in Fig. 3. This linear relationship is expressed as: K K0 d KP (1)

where d is the displacement of the integral bridge towards the backll soil and is the slope of the earth pressure variation depicted in Fig. 3. The value of varies as a function of the backll soil type. Typical values of for various soil types are provided elsewhere [22]. The soilstructure interaction as a result of positive temperature variation is illustrated in Fig. 4. The gure consists of three separate sketches. The sketch at the top illustrates the structure model used to formulate the

where, Eg is the modulus of elasticity of the girder material, Ag is the cross-sectional area of the girder, As is the cross-sectional area of the portion of the deck slab with an effective width equal to the spacing of girders and n is the modular ratio dened as the ratio of the elastic modulus of slab material to that of girder material. Assuming nearly identical abutment congurations at both sides of the bridge, and neglecting the translational stiffness of the piles in the longitudinal direction, the earth pressure force acting on the abutment is assumed to be completely transferred to the bridge deck. Then, assuming a triangular earth pressure distribution behind the abutment, the earth pressure force, Fs, is expressed as: Fs 1 2 h we sK 2 (3)

where h is the abutment height, we is the tributary width of the idealized bridge model and s is the unit weight of backll soil. Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (3), the earth pressure force is expressed as: Fs 1 2 h we s(K0 2 d) (4)

From Fig. 4, the axial force, Fd, in the deck is expressed as: Fd
Fig. 4. Soilstructure interaction at abutment.

2Eg(Ag nAs) (d0 Ld

d)

(5)

The free longitudinal displacement, d0, of the bridge

234

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

deck due to a positive temperature variation is expressed as follows [24]: d0 1 2 T Ld (6)

where is the coefcient of thermal expansion for the deck material and T is the differential temperature variation. To satisfy the equilibrium of forces in the longitudinal direction of the bridge, the axial force, Fd, in the deck must be equal to the earth pressure force, Fs. Substituting, rst, Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) and then setting Eq. (4) equal to Eq. (5) and simplifying, the nal displacement of the bridge deck at abutment location, considering the combined effects of positive temperature variation and the earth pressure force, is obtained as: d 2 T Eg(Ag nAs) h2we sK0 4Eg(Ag nAs) h2we s Ld (7)

Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (1) and simplifying, the earth pressure coefcient, K, for the backll soil is expressed as follows; K 2 2K0 T Ld Ldh we s 2Eg(Ag nAs)
2

perature variation, soil pressure and live load are considered in this stage. Inuence line studies are conducted for a single-, twoand three-span integral bridge to determine the most critical load combinations resulting in maximum responses at various locations on the structure in stage 2. The response locations are illustrated in Fig. 5. In the gure, the locations indicated by a solid circle are for exural responses and the ones indicated by a short line are for shear responses. The most critical load combinations are listed in Table 2. In the table, the cells marked by M indicate the application of the specied load to obtain the optimum exural response for the location under consideration. Similarly, the cells marked by V indicate the application of the specied load to obtain the optimum shear response for the location under consideration. It is noteworthy that the earth pressure loads applied at abutments are considered in correlation with thermal loads. At rest earth pressure is considered when there is no thermal movement, but passive and active earth pressures are considered when there is thermal expansion and contraction respectively. At some response locations along the structure (e.g. 1 and 4), the effect of temperature variation and earth pressure oppose one another. Therefore, all combinations of temperature and earth pressure effects must be considered to obtain the optimum response. 4.3. Analysis for the effects of temperature variation, earth and gravity loads For the analysis of an integral bridge subjected to temperature variation, gravitational and earth pressure loads, a separate analytical model is considered for each construction stage. Fig. 6 illustrates a typical two-span integral bridge and its analytical model for construction stage one. For this stage, the integral bridge is idealized as a 2-D structure considering only one girder. The naked girder alone is considered assuming that the deck concrete which provides continuity between the structural components is not hardened. The bridge is analyzed considering each span as a simply supported beam for stage one loads tabulated in Table 1. The resulting internal element forces are then stored for superimposing them to the ones resulting from the loads applied in stage two. Fig. 7 illustrates the same bridge and its analytical model for construction stage two. The bridge is idealized as a 2-D structure considering only one girder and an effective width of slab. Accordingly, the abutments are idealized to have a tributary width equal to that of the slab. Similarly, the number of columns and piles per tributary width is calculated and their stiffness is lumped to obtain a single column or pile element for analysis purposes. Full continuity at the intermediate supports and at the abutmentdeck connection joints is considered

KP

(8)

The actual earth pressure coefcient is calculated using the above equation. Since the equation yields a smaller earth pressure coefcient than passive, more economical designs for abutment and piles may be obtained. 4.2. Construction stages, loads and load combinations The construction of an integral bridge is done in stages. Therefore, it must be analyzed for each construction stage to ensure that the structure has adequate capacity to sustain the applied loads particular to the stage under consideration. Two stages are considered for the design of a slab-on-prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridge. The loads applied at each stage are listed in Table 1. In the rst stage the slab concrete is assumed to be wet. Accordingly, the prestressed-concrete girders alone resist the applied loads in this stage. The structure is analyzed for the effects of prestressing force, dead weight of the girders, weight of wet concrete slab, and weight of the diaphragms. In the second stage the bridge is assumed to be in service. Full composite action is considered between the slab, girders and abutments. The effects of superimposed dead loads, asphalt weight, tem-

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

235

Table 1 Summary of stage loading Stage # Stage name Loads applied in the stage Load ID 1 Simply supported beams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Description Own weight of girder Pre-tensioning Weight of wet concrete slab, diaphragms and abutment Superimposed dead load (e.g. in sidewalks, curbs, medians) Asphalt weight Long-term prestress losses Highway live loading and sidewalk load, or pedestrian loads at Fatigue Limit State As load 7 but at Serviceability Limit State As load 7 but at Ultimate Limit State Thermal load due to longitudinal expansion Thermal load due to longitudinal contraction Passive earth pressure At rest earth pressure Active earth pressure Seismic loads

Composite structure

tion is assumed between the abutment and pile members. An equivalent pile length, le, is assumed to idealize the pile. It is a function of the soil and pile properties and expressed as [18,25,26]:
4

le
Fig. 5. Response locations.

lu

EpIp kh

(9)

assuming that the concrete is fully hardened. The idealized abutment and pier members are connected to the deck nodes by abutmentdeck or pierdeck connection elements. The connection elements are used to dene the rotational and/or translational stiffness of joints at various parts of an integral bridge. Normally, if adequate continuity is provided between the slab, girders and abutment using a proper reinforcement detailing, connection elements at abutmentdeck joints are assumed as rigid. Based on the type of reinforcement detailing at the deckabutment joint, adequate continuity may not be provided between the connected elements. In this case, the joint may be idealized as a hinge or semi-rigid by adjusting the stiffness of the connection element. The connection element at the deck-pier joint represents the bearing and the one at the pier base is used to idealize the xity of the pier base and/or rotational stiffness of the foundation. If the pier is assumed to be xed to a rigid foundation, the connection element is assigned a stiffness equal to that of the idealized pier element. The rigid joint elements illustrated in Fig. 7 are used to idealize the geometry and stiffness of the bridge components within the joints. In the analytical model, hinge connec-

where lu is the unsupported length of pile above soil, Ep is modulus of elasticity of pile material, Ip is the moment of inertia of the pile and kh is coefcient of sub-grade reaction of the soil. The pile displacements beyond this equivalent length are negligible. The pile member in the model is therefore assumed to have xed support conditions at the end. Bridges with large skew angles are not appropriate for integral construction [13]. Consequently, the above analytical model was not designed to consider skewed bridges. However, integral bridges with skew angles smaller than 20 may be idealized using the proposed model. In the model, frictional forces between the backll soil and approach slab and wing-walls, resulting from movements due to temperature variations, are also ignored. The above dened model is analyzed for loads numbered from 4 to 14 in Table 1. It is noteworthy that the live load applied on the structure must be proportioned to one girder considering the actual transverse distribution of live load effects. The live load transverse distribution factors for slab-on-girder decks can be obtained from bridge design codes [21,27]. The responses for the deck element obtained from the analysis should be superimposed on those obtained in stage one.

236

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

Table 2 Load combinations for maximum exural (M) and shear (V) responses Response location Dead loads Live loads Span # 1 1 M V 2 M V 3 Temperature Earth pressure

Pos. M V

Zero

Neg.

Pas. M V

At Rest

Act.

M V M V 2 M V M V M V M V M V M V M V M V M V M V M V M M M V 5 M V V M V M V M V M M V

M V M V

M M V V

4.4. Analysis for the effect of seismic load A 3-D model is necessary for a realistic representation of the behavior of an integral bridge and load distribution among its various members when it is subjected to seismic loads in the transverse or longitudinal direction. Fig. 8 shows the analytical model for seismic analysis of the same two-span integral bridge shown in Fig. 6. The bridge deck is modeled as a 3-D beam element. The inplane stiffness of the deck is relatively much higher than that of other members. Therefore, at the pier location, the bridge deck is modeled in the transverse direction as a rigid bar of length equal to the deck width. This transverse rigid bar is used to model the interaction between the axial deformation of the piers and torsional rotation of the bridge deck, as well as the interaction between the in-plane rotation of the deck and torsional rotation of bridge piers due to asymmetry or skewness. Elastomeric bearings are also idealized as 3-D beam elements and connected between the cap beam and the transverse rigid bar. If cap beam does not exist, the bearing elements are connected directly to the columns top. Pin connection is assumed at the joints linking the bearings and the rigid-bar. The product of the elastic modulus, Eib, and moment of inertia, Iib, of the idealized beam element representing the bearings is obtained using the following expression [28]:

Fig. 6. Actual structure and analytical model for construction stage one.

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

237

EibIib

GbAbh2 b 12

(10)

Fig. 7. Actual structure and analytical model for the nal construction stage.

where Gb, Ab and hb are respectively shear modulus, surface area and thickness of the elastomeric bearing. The abutments are idealized as 3-D beam elements. A transverse rigid bar is connected to the end of the abutment. The piles are then idealized as 3-D beam elements and connected to the rigid bar. Pin connection is assumed between the piles and the rigid bar in the longitudinal direction. The equivalent cantilever model can not be used to idealize the piles since two separate equivalent pile lengths may be obtained for piles with different stiffness in transverse and longitudinal directions. Consequently, the full length of the piles is used in the model. The pile elements are divided into a number of equal segments. Then, the lateral stiffness of the soil is calculated at each node level along the pile member using the coefcient of subgrade reaction for the foundation soil. Spring elements with the calculated lateral soil stiffness are then attached to each node. The resistance of the wing-walls to transverse seismic excitations may be taken into account by introducing a spring at the abutment element as shown in Fig. 8. The seismically induced soil forces behind the integral bridge abutments may be calculated using the modied MononobeOkabe method [27,29]. The analytical model dened above may be used to conduct a response spectrum analysis or a single mode spectral analysis to obtain the seismic response of the structure using an appropriate site response spectrum.

Fig. 8.

Analytical model for lateral load analysis.

238

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

4.5. Design considerations 4.5.1. Deck The bridge deck components are designed assuming a continuous frame action at the joints linking the bridge deck to the abutments. A connection detail consistent with the degree of continuity assumed at the joints is provided. A typical reinforcement detail that provides full continuity at the deckabutment joints is illustrated in Fig. 9. The effect of temperature variation and axial compression in the prestressed girders due to backll soil pressure is considered in the design. 4.5.2. Abutment, wing-wall and approach slab The abutment is connected monolithically to the deck as shown in Fig. 9, to avoid any expansion joint. The abutment height is restricted to the minimum practical value to reduce the soil pressure and to limit the weight which moves with the deck. However, the minimum penetration required for frost protection is provided. The frost penetration requirement can be reduced to minimize abutment height by providing insulation at the bottom of the abutment. It is recommended that abutments

at both sides of the bridge be of equal height since a difference in abutment heights causes unbalanced lateral load resulting in side-sway. Additionally, the soil under the approach slab may be sloped to reduce the height of the soil behind the abutment. This practice is also useful in preventing the compaction of the soil behind the abutment wall due to vehicular trafc. It also reduces the resistance of frictional forces, between the soil and the approach slab, to bridge movement. Turn-back wing-walls parallel to the roadway, carried by the structure, are preferably used. Their size is minimized to allow the substructure to move with minimum resistance. In the province of Ontario, Canada, abutment height and wing-wall length are limited to 6 and 7 m respectively [13]. The approach slab is built integral with the abutment to prevent water penetration. An expansion joint is provided at the end of the approach slab as shown in Fig. 10. The approach slab is designed as a simply supported structure spanning over the backll soil behind the abutment to prevent compaction of backll material.

Fig. 9.

Connection detail for deckabutment joint.

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

239

5. Comparative case study An existing bridge in Southern Ontario, Canada, is considered as an example to compare the analysis results obtained from the conventional and proposed design methods. It is a single-span prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridge. The geometry of the bridge is illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13. The dimensions in these gures are all in millimeters. The bridge was originally designed in compliance with the 1983 edition of OHBDC [21] (Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code) . It is redesigned as per the 1991 edition of the same code. The bridge components are sized and detailed following the conventional design procedure. The details of bridge components and design loads are described in the following sub-sections. The bridge is also analyzed using the proposed design procedure. The results obtained from both design methods for the nal stage are then compared. 5.1. Girder and slab details The prestressed concrete girders are CPCI 1900 with a concrete strength of 40 MPa. At the transfer stage, the concrete strength is assumed as 35 MPa. The prestress comprises 22 straight and 22 deected, low relaxation strands of each with 12.7 mm nominal diameter and tensile strength of 1860 MPa (CSA G279-M1982). The initial jacking stress per strand is 1489 MPa (147 kN force). The total prestress losses are calculated as 342 MPa (136 MPa at the transfer stage and 206 MPa after the transfer stage). The simplied girder details are illustrated in Fig. 13. The slab is 225 mm thick with a concrete strength of 30 MPa. Top and bottom reinforcement bars of size 15M (200 mm2 area) spaced at 300 mm are used in two orthogonal directions of the slab. The reinforcement bars used in all structural components have a yield strength of 400 MPa. 5.2. Abutment and pile details The abutments at both ends of the bridge have a thickness of 1200 mm and a height of 5500 mm. The strength of abutment concrete is 30 MPa. Reinforcement bars of size 20M (300 mm2 area) and 25M (500 mm2 area) spaced at 150 mm are used respectively at the front and back faces of the abutment. The back face reinforcement is bent and extended 4500 mm into the top of the slab. Tie bars of size 10M (100 mm2 area) spaced at 150 150 mm along the width and height of the abutment are used as shear reinforcement. The simplied abutment details are illustrated in Fig. 13. A single row of steel HP310 110 [30] piles is used under each abutment. Each pile is approximately 5000 mm long going up to the bedrock. The pile spacing is

Fig. 10.

Expansion joint at approach slab end.

4.5.3. Abutment piles A single row of piles is used to support the abutments. The design of piles may be carried out using the equivalent cantilever method as a beam-column with a xed base at some distance below the ground surface [18,25,26]. A pin connection is recommended between the pile top and abutment to allow free rotation of the pile top about an axis perpendicular to bridge longitudinal direction. If the connection is designed as xed, plastic bending moments may be produced at the pile top due to thermal movements and effect of vehicular trafc [3,1620]. In the absence of rigorous theoretical and experimental studies, it may be speculated that the repetitive variation of temperature and the effect of live load may therefore cause low cycle fatigue in steel piles. If the pile supporting system utilizes the frictional forces between the piles and the soil, consideration should be given to the effect of lateral displacement of the piles on the frictional resistance. As the piles will be moving laterally with temperature variations, a gap may be produced between the disturbed soil and the pile. This may result in considerable decrease of the frictional resistance of the piles. Therefore, the piles should be designed using the effective frictional pile length reduced by pile displacements [25]. If the piles are driven into stiff soils, their longitudinal displacement may somehow be restrained. Pre-drilled oversize holes lled with loose sand may be provided to reduce the resistance to lateral movements [13,18,20]. A typical detail for such an arrangement is provided in Fig. 11. 4.5.4. Bearings, pier and footing The pier is expected to deect and rock on its foundation when the structure contracts or expands due to temperature variation. Elastomeric bearings of adequate thickness may be used to reduce the exibility demand of the pier. The bearings are designed to accommodate the movements of the bridge and to support vertical loads coexisting with rotation of the deck. The pier footing is designed as narrow as possible in the longitudinal direction of the bridge to allow partial rotation of the pier at its base. If the footing is supported on piles, the pile group is designed to allow some rotation of the footing.

240

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

Fig. 11. Abutment pile arrangement in stiff soil.

1840 mm. The piles are oriented to develop strong axis bending in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. The yield strength of pile steel is 300 MPa. The pile crosssection properties are given elsewhere [30]. The equivalent pile length for the analysis of the structure is calculated as 3000 mm. The piles are assumed to be rigidly connected to the abutment for the conventional design method. However, a hinge connection between the piles and abutment is assumed as recommended by the proposed design method. Such a connection may be obtained by cutting the anges along the portion of the pile within the abutment. 5.3. Backll and foundation soil properties Granular soil type B [21] is used as backll for the abutments. The soil has a unit weight of 20 kN/m3, and an angle of internal friction of 30. The slope, , of the passive earth pressure variation is obtained as 24 m1 for

the backll soil. The foundation soil is a stiff clay with a coefcient of sub-grade reaction of 60,000 kN/m3.

5.4. Loads

The applied live load is a ve-axle design-truck as described in OHBDC [21]. Positive and negative temperature variations of respectively 18 and 38C are used for the design of the bridge. Full passive earth pressure condition is assumed to develop at the abutments for the conventional design method. Accordingly, a passive earth pressure coefcient of 3.0 is used for the design of the bridge. For the proposed design method, the earth pressure coefcient is calculated as a function of deck displacement due to temperature variation and soil properties using Eq. (8). The passive earth pressure coefcient is obtained as 0.56.

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

241

Fig. 12.

General geometry of the example bridge.

5.5. Analysis results The bridge is analyzed using the program OMBAS [31] (Ontario Modular Bridge Analysis System). The effects of seismic loads are not considered as Southern Ontario is classied as a seismically inactive zone. The analysis results are tabulated in Tables 35. Table 3 illustrates the optimum responses at the ultimate limit state (ULS) for the conventional and proposed design methods. The optimum responses are calculated using various ULS load combinations. Thus, they may not satisfy equilibrium conditions at element connections. The sign convention used is such that positive axial force causes tension in all bridge components and positive moment causes tension at the bottom face of the deck and at the back face of abutments and piles. The responses for the abutment are given per unit meter

width and those for the piles and the deck are given for each individual pile and girder. As seen in Table 3, comparable shear forces in the deck and axial forces in the sub-structure components are obtained from both design methods. However, the span moment obtained from the conventional design method is 25% larger than that obtained from the proposed design method. This discrepancy is a result of the assumptions made in the conventional design method, where the benecial effects of continuity at the joints and earth pressure forces applied at the abutments, in reducing the span moment, are neglected. The conventional design method yields much larger forces at the deck ends as well as at the abutment and piles as seen in Table 3. This is mainly due to the differences in the magnitude of the passive earth pressure forces used by the conventional and proposed design methods. The con-

242

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

Fig. 13. Prestress concrete girder and abutment details.

Table 3 Comparison of responses at ultimate limit state Response location Responses: conventional method Axial (kN) Deck Span Support Top Bottom Top Bottom n/a n/a 516 636 1179 1179 Shear (kN) n/a 1558 818 241 447 447 Moment (kN m) 10 543 7 691 1 042 388 719 622 Interface shear (kN) 317 929 n/a n/a n/a n/a Responses: proposed method Axial (kN) 929 929 516 636 1179 1179 Shear (kN) n/a 1568 249 84 156 156 Moment (kN m) 8471 2716 587 0 0 247 Interface shear (kN) 317 997 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Abutment

Pile

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

243

Table 4 Comparison of concrete stresses at serviceability limit state Response location Concrete stresses at SLS (MPa) Conventional method Support Girder bottom Girder top Slab top Girder bottom Girder top Slab top 8.57 5.85 0.08 6.13 10.91 3.09 Proposed method 16.42 8.01 1.33 11.08 10.65 2.22

Span

ventional design method considers a full passive earth pressure at the abutments, whereas the proposed design method considers only a partial passive earth pressure as a function of structure movement and soil properties. As mentioned earlier, conventional design method neglects the effects of temperature variation and axial force in the deck design. It is noteworthy that due to the effect of negative temperature variation and active earth pressure, the effective prestress is reduced by 78 MPa (i.e., 22% of the total prestress losses). In Table 4, the concrete stresses in the prestressed concrete girders for the conventional and proposed design methods are compared at the serviceability limit state (SLS). The conventional design method yields smaller stresses at the girder bottom since the effects of continuity at the support and earth pressure forces applied at the abutments are neglected in the girder design. It is to be noted that the compressive stress in the prestress concrete girders is limited to 45% of the concrete strength (i.e. 0.45 40 18 MPa) [21].
Table 5 Comparison of live load stress ranges at fatigue limit state Response location

Table 5 compares the fatigue limit state (FLS) live load stress ranges obtained from the conventional and proposed design methods. The fatigue limit state stress ranges for the components under consideration are also listed in the table. In most cases, the proposed method yields smaller stress ranges. This results from the incorporation of the continuity of the structure in the analysis. Also note that the proposed design method yields a much smaller stress range at the pile top since the pile-abutment connection is designed as a hinge. In this case, the stress ranges at the pile top are only due to the axial cyclic forces generated by live load. The analysis results at all limit states demonstrated that the component sizes and the amount of reinforcement could be reduced if the structure was designed following the proposed design procedure. The tie bars used as a shear reinforcement in the abutment would not be needed. The front and back face reinforcement bar sizes could be reduced from 20M and 25M to 15M and 20M respectively. The abutment thickness could be reduced from 1200 mm to 1000 mm. The piles could also be spaced at 2000 mm instead of 1840 mm. Furthermore, instead of 44, only 36 prestress strands could be adequate to sustain the applied loads. The reduction in the number of prestress strands also results in smaller SLS concrete stresses at the girder bottom.

6. Conclusions A rational design approach for integral bridges has been developed considering their actual behavior and load distribution among their various components. The proposed design methodology recommends the analysis of integral bridges for each construction stage. The

Live load stress ranges at FLS (MPa) Conventional method Proposed method 27.05 104.54 7.56 5.77 0.21 0.93 22.14 1.23 0.75 0.38 20.73 62.06 Allowable range 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 165 165

Deck

Span

Support

Girder bottom reinforcement Girder top reinforcement Slab top reinforcement Girder bottom reinforcement Girder top reinforcement Slab top reinforcement Front face reinforcement Back face reinforcement Front face reinforcement Back face reinforcement

34.75 113.86 8.86 0.74 0.08 0.19 24.93 1.54 2.21 0.88 46.83 66.61

Abutment Top Bottom

Pile

Top Bottom

244

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

effects of applied loads on the structure members are then carried from a previous construction stage to the next. The earth pressure forces acting on integral bridges are considered in correlation with the effects of temperature variation. The interaction between the structure displacement due to temperature variation and backll soil pressure is formulated. Furthermore, analytical models are developed for the analysis of integral bridges. Some important design considerations for various integral bridge components are also highlighted. The proposed design method is compared with the conventional design method currently used by many structural engineers for the design of integral bridges in North America and Europe. The proposed design method is observed to have the following advantages: 1. The conventional design approach neglects the continuity of the structure at the joints linking the bridge deck to the abutments for the design of the deck. Accordingly, the benecial effects of continuity at the joints and earth pressure forces applied at the abutments in reducing the maximum span moment are not considered. The proposed design approach considers such benecial effects for the design of the deck. 2. In the conventional design approach, the piers are designed only for vertical reaction loads transferred from the superstructure and for lateral loads directly applied on the piers. Obviously, this design approach is limited to cases where the soil pressures at both sides of the bridge are in equilibrium. The proposed design approach reects the effect of unbalanced longitudinal forces on the pier design. 3. The effect of temperature variation and axial load applied to prestress concrete girders due to earth pressure forces is neglected in the conventional design approach. Such effects are fully considered in the proposed design approach. 4. The conventional design approach recommends the use of full passive pressure for the design of deck abutment joints. The proposed soilstructure interaction formulation may result in smaller earth pressure forces which may lead to more economical designs. 5. The conventional design approach neglects the effects of seismic forces. In the proposed design approach, an analytical model is developed to consider the effect of such forces.

[4] [5] [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11] [12]

[13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

References
[1] Wolde-Tinsae AM, Klinger JE, White EJ. Performance of Jointless Bridges. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 1988;2(2):11128. [2] Wolde-Tinsae AM, Klinger JE, Mullangi R. Bridge Deck Joint Rehabilitation or Retrotting: Final Report. College Park, MD: Department of Civil Engineering, 1988. [3] Burke MP Jr. Bridge deck joints. NCHRP synthesis of highway

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

practice, no. 141. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1988. Burke MP. Integral bridge design is on the rise. AISC Modern Steel Construction 1990;30(4):911. Steiger DJ. Jointless bridges provide fuel for controversy. Roads and Bridges 1993;31(11):4854. Burke MP Jr. Integral bridges. Transportation research record, no. 1275. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1990. Soltani AA, Kukreti AR. Performance evaluation of integral bridges. Transportation research record, no. 1371. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1992:1725. Burke MP Jr. Semi-Integral bridges: movements and forces. Transportation research record, no. 1460. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1994:17. Burke MP Jr. Integral bridges: attributes and limitations. Transportation research record, no. 1393. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1993:18. Burke MP. Jr. The design of concrete integral bridges. Concrete International June 1993:3742. Hambly EC, Nicholson BA. Prestressed beam integral bridges. The Structural Engineer 1990;68(23):47481. Hayward A. Continuous and jointless steel bridges. Transportation research laboratory record 19, Crowthorne, UK, 1992:8390. Husain I, Bagnariol D. Integral bridges. Report SO-96-01. St. Catharines, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1996. Hamley EC. Integral bridge abutment details in practice and theory. Transport research laboratory record 19, Crowthorne, UK, 1992. Seismic design and retrot manual for highway bridges, FHWAIP-87-6. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1987. Emanual JH, Hulsey JL, Best JL, Senne JH, Thompson LE. Current design practice for bridge superstructures connected to exible substructures. Civil Engineering Study 73-3, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO, 1973. Loveall CL. Jointless bridge decks. Civil Engineering November 1985. Abendroth RE, Greimann LF. A rational design approach for integral bridge piles. Transportation research record, no. 1223. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1989:1223. Abendroth RE, Greimann LF, Ebner PB. Abutment pile design for jointless bridges. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1989;115(11):291429. Girton DD, Hawkinson TR, Greimann LF. Validation of design recommendations for integral-abutment piles. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1991;117(7):211734. Ontario highway bridge design code, 3rd ed. Downsview: Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Transportation, Quality and Standards Division, 1991. Barker RM, Duncan JMK, Rojiani KB, Ooi PSK, Kim SG. Manuals for the design of bridge foundations, NCHRP Report 343. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1991. Clough GM, Duncan JM. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engineering handbook, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. Roeder CW, Moorty S. Thermal movements in bridges. Transportation research record, no. 1290. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1990:13543. Greimann LF, Abendtroth RE, Johnson DE, Ebner PB. Pile design and tests for integral bridges, nal report. Ames, Iowa: Iowa Department of Transportation, Project HR-273, 1987. Girton DD, Hawkinson TR, Greimann LF, Bergenson K, Ndon

M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245

245

U, Abendorth RE. Validation of design recommendations for integral piles. Ames, Iowa: Iowa Department of Transportation, Project HR-292, 1989. [27] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications, 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials, 1994. [28] Dicleli M. Effects of extreme gravity and seismic loads on short to medium span slab-on-girder, steel highway bridges. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1993.

[29] Demetrios ET. Bridge engineering: design, rehabilitation and maintenance of modern highway bridges. New York: McGrawHill, 1995. [30] Handbook of steel construction, 5th ed. Willowdale, Ontario: Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, 1993. [31] Ontario modular bridge analysis system, release 6.3. St. Catharines, Ontario: Transportation Engineering Division, Structural Ofce, 1998.