See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245077554

A rational design approach for prestressed-

concrete-girder integral bridges

Article in Engineering Structures March 2000

DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00080-7

CITATIONS READS

28 490

1 author:

Murat Dicleli
Middle East Technical University
101 PUBLICATIONS 963 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Dicleli on 10 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 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 Office, 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 simpli-
fied 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 benefits 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 designing the abutments and their foundations flexible

Expansion joints on bridges have provided consider-
able maintenance problems for transportation agencies
[15]. Therefore, the economic and functional advan-
tages, and improved durability of integral bridges, in lieu
of expansion joints and bearings, are generally recog-
nized 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 flexible
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 paral-
lel to the bridge longitudinal direction is minimized by
* Tel.: 1-905-704-2392; Fax: 1-905-704-2060; E-mail: mdicle-
li@usa.net
and less resistant to longitudinal movements of the struc-
ture. Accordingly, the abutments are built shorter to
reduce the restraint provided by the backfill soil to the
longitudinal movement of the bridge. Only a single row
of steel H piles is generally used to provide vertical sup-
port 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 superstruc-
ture. 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 experi-
mental 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 reflect the actual behavior of
the structure and the effects of several loading con-
ditions. Considering these limitations, a design pro-
cedure 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 briefly intro-
duced. Its limitations attributed to the analytical models
used for the analysis of the structure and design pro-
cedure 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 final 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 specifically the design
of deckabutment continuity connections is required [9
11,13]. The weight of the concrete slab, girders, dia-
phragm beams and superimposed dead load and live load
are considered for the design of the deck. Fig. 2. Conventional analytical models for deck design.
In Fig. 2, the third sketch from the top shows the con-
ventional analytical model used for the design of deck tinuity is considered only at the deckabutment joints
abutment joints assuming full composite action between [9,10,13]. Furthermore, the model does not reflect the
the slab, girders and abutments. The analytical model three-dimensional effect of lateral loads on the piers,
does not consider a complete frame action since the piers abutments, wing-walls and piles. A 3-D model is still
are modeled as simple roller supports. The effect of con- 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 corre-
lation between the temperature variation and the magni-
tude 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 connec-
tions are standardized for a variety of range of appli-
cations [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 continu-
ous 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 conti-
nuity 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 configurations 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 shorten-
ing of the prestress concrete girders due to elastic defor-
mation 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 conti-
nuity. Consequently, bending moments at pile ends are
produced due to temperature variations and vehicular
traffic. 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 abut-
ment may prevent such a potentially destructive prob-
lem.
In the conventional design approach, the effect of seis-
mic 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 abut-
ment foundations due to the flexible 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 flexible 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
traffic, 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 abut-
ments and piles to longitudinal movements and ser-
viceability 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 difficulties in establishing the movements and
their directions [13].
4. Proposed design method
4.1. Temperature variation and soilstructure
interaction
The earth pressure coefficient is a function of the dis-
placement or rotation of the earth-retaining structure. An
integral bridge will experience elongation and contrac-
tion due to temperature variations during its service life.
A very small displacement of the bridge away from the
backfill 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
Fig. 3. Variation of passive earth pressure coefficient as a function
of structure displacement towards backfill.
towards the backfill soil. The actual earth pressure coef-
ficient, K, may change between at rest, K0, and passive,
KP, earth pressure coefficients depending on the amount
of displacement. Past researchers obtained the variation
of earth pressure coefficient as a function of structure
displacement from experimental data and finite 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 dKP (1)
where d is the displacement of the integral bridge
towards the backfill soil and is the slope of the earth
pressure variation depicted in Fig. 3. The value of var-
ies as a function of the backfill 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 figure
consists of three separate sketches. The sketch at the top
illustrates the structure model used to formulate the
Fig. 4. Soilstructure interaction at abutment.
233
effect of positive temperature variation on the magnitude
of earth pressure coefficient. The structure model is
obtained by conservatively neglecting the resistance of
the piers, abutments and piles to the longitudinal move-
ment 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 displace-
ment, 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 final displace-
ment, 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:
2Eg(Ag nAs)
kd (2)
Ld
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 defined as the ratio of the
elastic modulus of slab material to that of girder
material.
Assuming nearly identical abutment configurations 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:
1 2
Fs h wesK (3)
2
where h is the abutment height, we is the tributary width
of the idealized bridge model and s is the unit weight
of backfill soil. Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (3), the earth
pressure force is expressed as:
1 2
Fs h wes(K0 d) (4)
2
From Fig. 4, the axial force, Fd, in the deck is
expressed as:
2Eg(Ag nAs)
Fd (d0 d) (5)
Ld
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]:
1 and three-span integral bridge to determine the most
d0 T Ld (6)
2
where is the coefficient of thermal expansion for the
deck material and T is the differential temperature vari-
ation.
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. Substitut-
ing, first, Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) and then setting Eq. (4)
equal to Eq. (5) and simplifying, the final displacement
of the bridge deck at abutment location, considering the
combined effects of positive temperature variation and
the earth pressure force, is obtained as:
2 T Eg(Ag nAs) h2wesK0
d (7)
4Eg(Ag nAs)
h2wes
Ld
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (1) and simplifying, the
earth pressure coefficient, K, for the backfill soil is
expressed as follows;
2K0 T Ld
K KP (8)
Ldh2wes
2 earth and gravity loads
2Eg(Ag nAs)
The actual earth pressure coefficient is calculated
using the above equation. Since the equation yields a
smaller earth pressure coefficient 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 construc-
tion 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 inte-
gral bridge. The loads applied at each stage are listed in
Table 1. In the first 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 con-
sidered between the slab, girders and abutments. The
effects of superimposed dead loads, asphalt weight, tem-
perature variation, soil pressure and live load are con-
sidered in this stage.
Influence line studies are conducted for a single-, two-
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
figure, the locations indicated by a solid circle are for
flexural responses and the ones indicated by a short line
are for shear responses. The most critical load combi-
nations are listed in Table 2. In the table, the cells
marked by M indicate the application of the specified
load to obtain the optimum flexural response for the
location under consideration. Similarly, the cells marked
by V indicate the application of the specified 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 ther-
mal 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,
For the analysis of an integral bridge subjected to tem-
perature variation, gravitational and earth pressure loads,
a separate analytical model is considered for each con-
struction stage. Fig. 6 illustrates a typical two-span inte-
gral 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 struc-
tural 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
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245 235

Table 1
Summary of stage loading

Stage # Stage name Loads applied in the stage

Load ID Description

1 Simply supported beams 1 Own weight of girder

2 Pre-tensioning
3 Weight of wet concrete slab, diaphragms and abutment
2 Composite structure 4 Superimposed dead load (e.g. in sidewalks, curbs, medians)
5 Asphalt weight
6 Long-term prestress losses
7 Highway live loading and sidewalk load, or pedestrian loads at Fatigue Limit State
8 As load 7 but at Serviceability Limit State
9 As load 7 but at Ultimate Limit State
10 Thermal load due to longitudinal expansion
11 Thermal load due to longitudinal contraction
12 Passive earth pressure
13 At rest earth pressure
14 Active earth pressure
15 Seismic loads

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]:

k
EpIp
le lu 4 (9)
h

Fig. 5. Response locations.

assuming that the concrete is fully hardened. The ideal-
ized abutment and pier members are connected to the
deck nodes by abutmentdeck or pierdeck connection
elements. The connection elements are used to define the
rotational and/or translational stiffness of joints at vari-
ous parts of an integral bridge. Normally, if adequate
continuity is provided between the slab, girders and
abutment using a proper reinforcement detailing, con-
nection 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 fixity of the pier base and/or rotational stiffness of
the foundation. If the pier is assumed to be fixed 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 ideal-
ize 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 coefficient 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 fixed support con-
ditions 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 back-
fill soil and approach slab and wing-walls, resulting from
movements due to temperature variations, are also
ignored.
The above defined model is analyzed for loads num-
bered 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 distri-
bution of live load effects. The live load transverse dis-
tribution 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 flexural (M) and shear (V) responses

Response Dead loads Live loads Temperature Earth pressure

location Span #

1 2 3 Pos. Zero Neg. Pas. At Rest Act.

1 M M M M
V V V V
M M
V V
M M
V V

2 M M M M M
V V V V V

3 M M M M M
V V V V V

4 M M M M M
V V V
M M
M M
V V

5 M V M M V M V
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 seis-
mic 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 in-
plane 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 trans-
verse 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 bear-
ing elements are connected directly to the columns top.
Pin connection is assumed at the joints linking the bear-
ings and the rigid-bar. The product of the elastic modu-
lus, Eib, and moment of inertia, Iib, of the idealized beam
Fig. 6. Actual structure and analytical model for construction stage element representing the bearings is obtained using the
one. following expression [28]:
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245 237

GbAbh2b
EibIib (10)
12

where Gb, Ab and hb are respectively shear modulus, sur-

Fig. 7. Actual structure and analytical model for the final construc-
tion stage.
face 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 direc-
tions. Consequently, the full length of the piles is used
in the model. The pile elements are divided into a num-
ber of equal segments. Then, the lateral stiffness of the
soil is calculated at each node level along the pile mem-
ber using the coefficient of subgrade reaction for the
foundation soil. Spring elements with the calculated lat-
eral soil stiffness are then attached to each node. The
resistance of the wing-walls to transverse seismic exci-
tations may be taken into account by introducing a spring
at the abutment element as shown in Fig. 8. The seis-
mically induced soil forces behind the integral bridge
abutments may be calculated using the modified
MononobeOkabe method [27,29].
The analytical model defined 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 backfill 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 minim-
ize abutment height by providing insulation at the bot-
tom of the abutment. It is recommended that abutments
Fig. 9. Connection detail for deckabutment joint.
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 abut-
ment wall due to vehicular traffic. 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 mini-
mized 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 pro-
vided 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 backfill soil behind the abut-
ment to prevent compaction of backfill material.
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245
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 equival-
ent cantilever method as a beam-column with a fixed
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 longitudi-
nal direction. If the connection is designed as fixed, plas-
tic bending moments may be produced at the pile top
due to thermal movements and effect of vehicular traffic
[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 filled 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 deflect and rock on its foun-
dation when the structure contracts or expands due to
temperature variation. Elastomeric bearings of adequate
thickness may be used to reduce the flexibility 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 foot-
ing 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 foot-
ing.
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 figures 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 pro-
cedure. The results obtained from both design methods
for the final 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 deflected, low relaxation
strands of each with 12.7 mm nominal diameter and ten-
sile 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 simplified girder details are illus-
trated 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 thick-
ness 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 simplified 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
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 cross-
section properties are given elsewhere [30]. The equival-
ent pile length for the analysis of the structure is calcu-
lated 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 pro-
posed design method. Such a connection may be
obtained by cutting the flanges along the portion of the
pile within the abutment.
5.3. Backfill and foundation soil properties
Granular soil type B [21] is used as backfill 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 backfill soil. The foundation soil is a stiff clay with
a coefficient of sub-grade reaction of 60,000 kN/m3.
5.4. Loads
The applied live load is a five-axle design-truck as
described in OHBDC [21]. Positive and negative tem-
perature 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 abut-
ments for the conventional design method. Accordingly,
a passive earth pressure coefficient of 3.0 is used for the
design of the bridge. For the proposed design method,
the earth pressure coefficient is calculated as a function
of deck displacement due to temperature variation and
soil properties using Eq. (8). The passive earth pressure
coefficient 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 classified as a seismically inactive zone. The
analysis results are tabulated in Tables 35.
Table 3 illustrates the optimum responses at the ulti-
mate 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 connec-
tions. 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 pro-
posed design method. This discrepancy is a result of the
assumptions made in the conventional design method,
where the beneficial effects of continuity at the joints
and earth pressure forces applied at the abutments, in
reducing the span moment, are neglected. The conven-
tional 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 Responses: proposed method

Moment Interface Moment Interface

Axial (kN) Shear (kN) Axial (kN) Shear (kN)
(kN m) shear (kN) (kN m) shear (kN)

Deck Span n/a n/a 10 543 317 929 n/a 8471 317
Support n/a 1558 7 691 929 929 1568 2716 997

Abutment Top 516 818 1 042 n/a 516 249 587 n/a
Bottom 636 241 388 n/a 636 84 0 n/a

Pile Top 1179 447 719 n/a 1179 156 0 n/a

Bottom 1179 447 622 n/a 1179 156 247 n/a
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245 243

Table 4 Table 5 compares the fatigue limit state (FLS) live

Comparison of concrete stresses at serviceability limit state load stress ranges obtained from the conventional and
Response location Concrete stresses at SLS (MPa) proposed design methods. The fatigue limit state stress
ranges for the components under consideration are also
Conventional Proposed listed in the table. In most cases, the proposed method
method method yields smaller stress ranges. This results from the incor-
poration of the continuity of the structure in the analysis.
Support Girder bottom 8.57 16.42
Girder top 5.85 8.01 Also note that the proposed design method yields a much
Slab top 0.08 1.33 smaller stress range at the pile top since the pile-abut-
ment connection is designed as a hinge. In this case, the
Span Girder bottom 6.13 11.08 stress ranges at the pile top are only due to the axial
Girder top 10.91 10.65 cyclic forces generated by live load.
Slab top 3.09 2.22 The analysis results at all limit states demonstrated
that the component sizes and the amount of reinforce-
ment could be reduced if the structure was designed fol-
ventional design method considers a full passive earth lowing the proposed design procedure. The tie bars used
pressure at the abutments, whereas the proposed design as a shear reinforcement in the abutment would not be
method considers only a partial passive earth pressure needed. The front and back face reinforcement bar sizes
as a function of structure movement and soil properties. could be reduced from 20M and 25M to 15M and 20M
As mentioned earlier, conventional design method respectively. The abutment thickness could be reduced
neglects the effects of temperature variation and axial from 1200 mm to 1000 mm. The piles could also be
force in the deck design. It is noteworthy that due to the spaced at 2000 mm instead of 1840 mm. Furthermore,
effect of negative temperature variation and active earth instead of 44, only 36 prestress strands could be
pressure, the effective prestress is reduced by 78 MPa adequate to sustain the applied loads. The reduction in
(i.e., 22% of the total prestress losses). the number of prestress strands also results in smaller
In Table 4, the concrete stresses in the prestressed SLS concrete stresses at the girder bottom.
concrete girders for the conventional and proposed
design methods are compared at the serviceability limit
state (SLS). The conventional design method yields 6. Conclusions
smaller stresses at the girder bottom since the effects of
continuity at the support and earth pressure forces A rational design approach for integral bridges has
applied at the abutments are neglected in the girder been developed considering their actual behavior and
design. It is to be noted that the compressive stress in load distribution among their various components. The
the prestress concrete girders is limited to 45% of the proposed design methodology recommends the analysis
concrete strength (i.e. 0.45 40 18 MPa) [21]. of integral bridges for each construction stage. The

Table 5
Comparison of live load stress ranges at fatigue limit state

Response location Live load stress ranges at FLS (MPa)

Conventional method Proposed method Allowable range

Deck Span Girder bottom reinforcement 34.75 27.05 125

Girder top reinforcement 113.86 104.54 125
Slab top reinforcement 8.86 7.56 125
Support Girder bottom reinforcement 0.74 5.77 125
Girder top reinforcement 0.08 0.21 125
Slab top reinforcement 0.19 0.93 125

Abutment Top Front face reinforcement 24.93 22.14 125

Back face reinforcement 1.54 1.23 125
Bottom Front face reinforcement 2.21 0.75 125
Back face reinforcement 0.88 0.38 125

Pile Top 46.83 20.73 165

Bottom 66.61 62.06 165
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 tempera-
ture variation. The interaction between the structure dis-
placement due to temperature variation and backfill 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 conti-
nuity of the structure at the joints linking the bridge
deck to the abutments for the design of the deck.
Accordingly, the beneficial effects of continuity at the
joints and earth pressure forces applied at the abut-
ments in reducing the maximum span moment are not
considered. The proposed design approach considers
such beneficial 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 reflects 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 interac-
tion 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.
References
[1] Wolde-Tinsae AM, Klinger JE, White EJ. Performance of Joint-
less 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 Retrofitting: Final Report. College Park, MD:
Department of Civil Engineering, 1988.
[3] Burke MP Jr. Bridge deck joints. NCHRP synthesis of highway
practice, no. 141. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, 1988.
[4] Burke MP. Integral bridge design is on the rise. AISC Modern
Steel Construction 1990;30(4):911.
[5] Steiger DJ. Jointless bridges provide fuel for controversy. Roads
and Bridges 1993;31(11):4854.
[6] Burke MP Jr. Integral bridges. Transportation research record, no.
1275. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, 1990.
[7] Soltani AA, Kukreti AR. Performance evaluation of integral
bridges. Transportation research record, no. 1371. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
1992:1725.
[8] Burke MP Jr. Semi-Integral bridges: movements and forces.
Transportation research record, no. 1460. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
1994:17.
[9] Burke MP Jr. Integral bridges: attributes and limitations. Trans-
portation research record, no. 1393. Washington, DC: Transpor-
tation Research Board, National Research Council, 1993:18.
[10] Burke MP. Jr. The design of concrete integral bridges. Concrete
International June 1993:3742.
[11] Hambly EC, Nicholson BA. Prestressed beam integral bridges.
The Structural Engineer 1990;68(23):47481.
[12] Hayward A. Continuous and jointless steel bridges. Transpor-
tation research laboratory record 19, Crowthorne, UK,
1992:8390.
[13] Husain I, Bagnariol D. Integral bridges. Report SO-96-01. St.
Catharines, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1996.
[14] Hamley EC. Integral bridge abutment details in practice and
theory. Transport research laboratory record 19, Crowthorne,
UK, 1992.
[15] Seismic design and retrofit manual for highway bridges, FHWA-
IP-87-6. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, 1987.
[16] Emanual JH, Hulsey JL, Best JL, Senne JH, Thompson LE. Cur-
rent design practice for bridge superstructures connected to flex-
ible substructures. Civil Engineering Study 73-3, University of
Missouri-Rolla, MO, 1973.
[17] Loveall CL. Jointless bridge decks. Civil Engineering Nov-
ember 1985.
[18] Abendroth RE, Greimann LF. A rational design approach for inte-
gral bridge piles. Transportation research record, no. 1223. Wash-
ington, DC: National Research Council, 1989:1223.
[19] Abendroth RE, Greimann LF, Ebner PB. Abutment pile design
for jointless bridges. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
1989;115(11):291429.
[20] Girton DD, Hawkinson TR, Greimann LF. Validation of design
recommendations for integral-abutment piles. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 1991;117(7):211734.
[21] Ontario highway bridge design code, 3rd ed. Downsview: Onta-
rio, Canada: Ministry of Transportation, Quality and Standards
Division, 1991.
[22] Barker RM, Duncan JMK, Rojiani KB, Ooi PSK, Kim SG. Man-
uals for the design of bridge foundations, NCHRP Report 343.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, 1991.
[23] Clough GM, Duncan JM. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engin-
eering handbook, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1991.
[24] Roeder CW, Moorty S. Thermal movements in bridges. Transpor-
tation research record, no. 1290. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, 1990:13543.
[25] Greimann LF, Abendtroth RE, Johnson DE, Ebner PB. Pile
design and tests for integral bridges, final report. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa Department of Transportation, Project HR-273, 1987.
[26] Girton DD, Hawkinson TR, Greimann LF, Bergenson K, Ndon
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 230245
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 specifications, 1st ed. Wash-
ington, DC: American Association of State Highway Transpor-
tation Officials, 1994.
[28] Dicleli M. Effects of extreme gravity and seismic loads on short
to medium span slab-on-girder, steel highway bridges. PhD The-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Onta-
rio, Canada, 1993.
View publication stats
245
[29] Demetrios ET. Bridge engineering: design, rehabilitation and
maintenance of modern highway bridges. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 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. Cathar-
ines, Ontario: Transportation Engineering Division, Structural
Office, 1998.