International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /

Volume 7 Issue 5

Static and Dynamic Performance of Tall Bridge

Abutments with Counterfort Configuration
Dr. H.S Panda1, Siddharth Mohanty2, Dr.Pravat Kumar Parhi3
1Associate Professor, KIIT UNIVERSITY, ODISHA, INDIA
2M.Tech Scholar (Structural Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA, INDIA
3Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA, INDIA
2Email:siddharthmohanty90@gmail.com

Abstract:

An abutment is subject to dead loads and live loads I. INTRODUCTION

of the approach span in addition to the lateral pressure due to
the earth fill. Bridges in mountainous terrain usually require
high embankments where the abutments cannot be
constructed as buried type and the resulting lateral loads on
the abutments increase significantly. The methodology of the
bridge modelling, seismic concept design, comparison of
alternatives and cost analysis is an important task before the
consultant or engineer for deciding an appropriate choice of
end span or abutment configuration in case of high abutment.
In this paper three different configuration of abutments have
been studied for a sample case of a Major Bridge in Chhota
Udepur to Dhar New BG Line rail project in Western
Railway for a bridge of approach span of 30.5m and height
of embankment around 30m. The abutment configurations
are modelled and analyzed using MIDAS Civil software for
maximum deformation, maximum stress and maximum
foundation pressure. The case study showed that for bridges
on high embankment, the earth pressure on abutments along
with the dynamic seismic increment for the retained earth is
the most significant factor in design loads. It is observed that
increase in counterforts increases stiffness of the structure
and thus reduces the deflection and stresses in the structure.
It is also found that abutments with 3 counterfort type
configuration is the most practicable solution for tall
abutments of railway bridges.
Keyword: Active Earth Pressure, Counterforts, Deflection,
High Embankment, Seismic Response Spectrum, Tall
Abutment.
The structural designer has several alternatives to choose
from when defining a structural system that fit the
architectural layout. In these years, many bridges are being
built in the Western, Northern, and Northeast of India at
Himalaya region. Designing any railway alignment through
mountainous terrain involves several challenges owing to
complex topography of bridge site requiring many high
abutment/pier bridges with unconventional configurations.
The past two decade have seen unprecedented growth of the
knowledge in the field of concrete bridges, development of
new structural forms, and new methods of computer based
analysis and design and development of high strength
materials. The need for new rationalised methods for
railway bridge structures in general, based on limit state
approach, in line with international practices, has been felt
for long time.
The Seismic design provisions of IRS Bridge rules
prior to 2018 were based upon IS 1893-1984. However the
IRS code has been completely revised in December 2017
incorporating the latest design philosophy as per IS 1893
part3. The new methods of IS 1893 take into account the
Flexibility and Ductility of the structure while calculating
design forces. The methodology of the bridge modelling,
seismic concept design, comparison of alternatives and cost
analysis is an important task before the consultant or
engineer for deciding an appropriate choice of end span or
abutment configuration in case of high abutment. Keeping
this in view, the task of the present study for concrete
railway bridges is to establish a common procedure and
choice of most suitable configuration for design of abutment
of railway bridges on high embankments with consideration
of earthquake effects in India based on the limit state
method.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Kulkarni et al (2014) studied the seismic performance
evaluation of a railway bridge with tall piers. The study
mainly focused on the central span of bridges having 100-m
high piers with a primary aim to examine the applicability of
the response reduction factors, R, given in seismic design
codes, for bridges with tall piers. The bridge was designed
with increasing values of response reduction factors and its
performance were evaluated considering different detailing
practices. Moment curvature behaviour and shear resistance
of hollow reinforced concrete piers was also discussed. The
effect of foundation flexibility on seismic performance of the
bridge was explored by performing a sensitivity study with
varying modulus of subgrade reaction of the founding soil. It
was observed that the response reduction factors prescribed
in the Indian code also yield satisfactory performance for tall
bridges. Foundation–soil flexibility had a significant effect on
the displacement of tall bridges, and affected the results in a
change of seismic performance level of the considered bridge,
in some cases.
Karantzikis and Spyrakos (2000) investigated the effects of
the soil-abutment interaction on seismic analysis and design
of integral bridges. Past experience and recent research has
indicated that soil-structure interaction plays a very important
role on seismic response of bridge structures. Abutments
attract a large portion of seismic forces, particularly in the
longitudinal direction. Therefore, participation of backfill soil
at the abutments must be considered. A design driven
methodology to model the abutment stiffness for either linear
or non-linear analysis, considering the backfill and the pier
foundation, was presented. A three-span bridge with
monolithic abutments was selected to demonstrate the
proposed procedures. Parametric studies demonstrated that, if
the bridge is analysed with the proposed methodology instead
of a simple procedure that ignores backfill stiffness reduction,
the calculated forces and moments at the piers are greater by
25%-60% and the displacements by 25%-75%, depending on
soil properties.
Patel N and Raval H (2015) described a methodology for the
analysis and design of Reinforced Concrete (RC) tall bridge
piers having different Solid Circular cross sections, which are
typically used in deep valley bridge viaducts. Cost
comparison was carried out for tall pier road bridges varying
30m to 100m in height and also varying grade of concrete
from M40, M50, M60 and M70. It was found that. It was
found that as the height of the pier increases, % required steel
increases and decreases with increasing Concrete grade.
Percentage cost contribution of steel varies from 16 to 50 %
of total cost as compared to its % requirement only 0.8 to 3.1
Qingxiang Zheng and Wenhua Liu (2010) studied the
seismic design of high piers for mountain bridges and
summarized some details of seismic measures, which can be
Volume 7 Issue 5
applied to high-pier bridge seismic design of mountain. Some
of the approaches are - The use of limit-displacement
apparatus in piers and abutments; Rational design of block
about piers and abutments; The use of seismic isolation
support which includes the using of laminated rubber support,
PTFE support, LRB, etc.; The use of ductility damping pier,
ductility damping members, which have sufficient ductility
enable bridge form a stable plastic hinge under strong
earthquake.
Chaturvedi (2007) carried out comparative study of
Alternative Designs for abutments of bridges considering
gravity type and frame type cantilever abutment for
comparative study keeping bearing capacity of soil , bridge
span , height of abutment and cost of material as the
parameters for selected study. It was found that the average
rate of increase in total material cost in the gravity type of
abutment as compared to the frame type abutment is higher
for increase in height, lower for increase in bridge span and
decrease in bearing capacity. The rate of decrease in total cost
of materials with increase in bearing capacity of soil is higher
in the frame type of abutment as compared to the gravity type
of abutment but the cost of gravity abutments is much less
than the cost of frame type abutments upto a height of 10 m.
The increase in the average rate of increase in the total cost-
of material per m increase in bridge span for gravity type
abutment is higher as compared to frame type of abutment for
same increase in height. Gravity type of abutments is not at
all suitable for spans beyond 16 m as its size increases
enormously in that case. For larger bridge spans, frame type
of abutment can be considered as an alternative.
Matsunaga et all (2004) studied the seismic performance of
abutment with cast-in-place concrete pile foundation on an
embankment having a height of more than 20 meters. The
authors investigated its dynamic behavior using numerical
analysis and model experiment and used Time history
response analysis by finite element method considering the
non-linear properties of pile and ground. Based on the results
of investigation, the authors proposed a practical design
formula, which could easily check the seismic performance
of the abutment and pile during large scale earthquakes. The
formula applies the concept of static slide stability analysis,
where the seismic horizontal coefficient that is equivalent to
dynamic response is derived using two correction factors
proposed by the authors based on results of on-line
experiment. The above literatures give information on
seismic design of tall piers, soil-abutment dynamic
interaction, and principles adopted in construction of high
embankment bridges. However it is necessary to have a
comprehensive evaluation and techno-economic comparison
of several alternatives of high abutment configuration to
deduce the most suitable choice for bridges with tall
abutments.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
In this paper attempt is to study the static and dynamic
performance of different abutment configurations with
counterforts for tall Railway Bridges. The alternatives under
study are-
i. T-type / Cantilever Abutment (No
counterforts)
ii. Counterfort Abutment with 2 Counterforts
below bearing
iii. Counterfort Abutment with 2 End
Counterforts and 1 central Counterfort
The parameters evaluated and studied post analysis are:-
• Deflection at under static loads and dynamic
loads
• Solid Stresses under static and dynamic
loads
• Resulting Foundation Pressure
• Factor of Safety against Sliding
The comparison of above alternatives shall determine the
effect of providing/increasing the number of counterforts in
an abutment configuration. The result shall help the designer
to choose the most suitable alternative for abutment
configuration on a high bank.
IV. IRS CODE PROVISIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEISMIC
DESIGN
The Indian Railway Standard code for Earthquake Resistant
Design of bridges 2017 deals with the earthquake resistant
design of regular bridges where the seismic actions are
mainly resisted at abutments or through flexure of piers.
Girder bridges, T-beam bridges, Truss bridges, hammer head
bridges on straight alignment having single or multiple
simply supported spans with each span less than 120m and
pier height above foundation less than 30m is classified as a
Volume 7 Issue 5
regular bridge. The bridge design is supposed to meet the
serviceability limit state under Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE) as well as Ultimate Limit State under Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE). SLS is to ensure that the parts
of the bridge intended to contribute to energy dissipation shall
undergo minor damage without giving rise to needs for
reduction of traffic or immediate repair whereas ULS is to
ensure that the bridge shall retain its structural integrity and
have adequate residual resistance although considerable
damage may occur in portions of the bridge. The seismic
forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal
directions. For this two separate analysis shall need to be
performed for design seismic forces along two orthogonal
directions namely-± ELx ± 0.3Ely and ± 0.3ELx ± Ely. The
effect of vertical seismic component on substructure may be
neglected in Zone II and III. For regular bridges and special
regular bridges, the code recommends use of Seismic
Coefficient Method or Response Spectrum Method for
analysis and Design. The Active Earth pressure in case of
abutment and retaining walls shall need to be suitably
increased for dynamic increment in seismic condition.
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE UNDER STUDY
The bridge under study is a proposed Railway Major Bridge
in Western India under Chhota Udepur to Dhar New BG Line
rail project in Western Railway. The total proposed span of
the bridge is 3 x 30.5m with RCC-Steel composite girder
superstructure and neoprene pad bearings. The general
topography of the project terrain is hilly and mountainous
wherein high banks are unavoidable. For the said bridge
height of abutment from rail formation level to bottom of
foundation is around 30m where the abutment is founded on
an isolated footing at a depth of 6m with hard rock strata. The
bridge falls under Seismic Zone III as per classification of IS
1893. The design discharge of the stream is 1587 cumecs with
a maximum flow depth of around 8m.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

TO CHHOTA UDAIPUR C.L. OF BRIDGE TO DHAR

OVERALL LENGTH 32450 32450 OVERALL LENGTH 32450

FORMATION LVL

CLEAR SPAN 30500 CLEAR SPAN 30500 CLEAR SPAN 30500

30000

HFL

G.L

Figure 1. General Elevation of the Bridge

B. DESIGN PARAMETERS
• Reference Codes: IRS Seismic Code-2017, IRS Bridge rules-2014, IRS Concrete bridge code-2014 & IRS Substructure
code-2013.
• Exposure Condition:- Moderate
• Material Properties:- M35 grade concrete and Fe 500 grade Steel.
• Seismic Zone:- Zone III
• Response Reduction Factor:- 2.5
• Importance Factor:- 1.5
• Damping Coefficient:- 5%
• Safe Bearing Capacity of soil – 88T/sqm
• Angle of Internal Friction of backfill – 35 degrees
• Type of Soil under Foundation for Seismic Response – Hard Soil
• Design Loads:-
o Dead Load of Superstructure (DL),
o Super Imposed Load of Superstructure (SIDL),
o Self-weight of Structure,
o Live Load of Track,
o Tractive Effort/Braking Force,
o Active Earth Pressure of Backfill,
o Active Earth Pressure due to surcharge
o Seismic Forces
• Load Combinations:-
CASE I Normal (DL+SIDL+LL)
CASE II b Normal + Longitudinal +30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ ELx + 0.3ELy)
CASE II c Normal + Longitudinal -30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ ELx - 0.3ELy)
CASE II d Normal - Longitudinal -30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - ELx - 0.3ELy)
CASE II e Normal - Longitudinal +30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - ELx + 0.3ELy)
CASE II f Normal + 30 % of Longitudinal + Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ 0.3ELx + ELy)
CASE II g Normal + 30 % of Longitudinal - Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ 0.3ELx - ELy)
CASE II h Normal - 30 % of Longitudinal - Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - 0.3ELx - ELy)
CASE II i Normal - 30 % of Longitudinal + Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - 0.3ELx + ELy)
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

C. MODELLING & ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE

Considering above parameters, the stability analysis of 3
alternative configuration of abutment has been carried out
manually using excel sheets and then modelled using MIDAS
CIVIL. The Finite Element Model has been prepared using
3D solid elements which is then utilised to determine
maximum deformation at bearing level under static loads
combination and seismic load combinations. The seismic
analysis using Seismic Coefficient Method is carried out in
Excel to arrive at the resultant load and stresses. The seismic
analysis using Response Spectrum Method is carried out in
MIDAS CIVIL software

Figure 2. Configuration 1: Cantilever Type Abutment without Counterfort

Figure 3. Configuration 2: Abutment with 2 Counterfort System

 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

Figure 4. Configuration 3: Abutment with 3 Counterfort System

VI. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The abutment models were analysed using MIDAS Civil software and MS Excel. The results are tabulated below

A. DEFLECTION UNDER STATIC AND DYNAMIC LOADS

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
42.35 47.2 47.2 37.4 37.4 48.2 40.8 40.8 43.8
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
14.28 14.18 14.39 14.39 14.18 13.99 13.99 14.63 14.63
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
8.09 8.07 8.11 8.11 8.07 8.03 8.03 8.32 8.32
ABUTMENT

Table 1. Summary of maximum deflection in longitudinal direction δx (mm)

60

50 47.2 47.2 48.2

CANTILEVER
43.8
Deflection iongitudinal δx

42.35 40.8 40.8 ABUTMENT

40 37.4 37.4

30 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
20 14.28 14.18 14.39 14.39 14.18 13.99 13.99 14.63 14.63

8.09 8.07 8.11 8.11 8.07 8.03 8.03 8.32 8.32 3 COUNTERFORT
10
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
0
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 5. Summary of maximum deflection in longitudinal direction δx (mm)
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
0.167 0.374 -0.374 -0.377 0.377 1.237 1.237 -1.237 -1.237
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
1.164 1.493 -1.493 -1.493 1.493 2.569 2.569 -2.569 -2.569
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
0.571 0.823 -0.823 -0.823 0.823 1.495 1.495 -1.495 -1.495
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
Table 2. Summary of maximum deflection in transverse direction δy (mm)

The summary of maximum deflection of the abutment for different load combinations is presented in Table 1 and Table 2. In the
present study it is observed that the as the number of counterforts in abutment configuration is increased the maximum deflection
in longitudinal direction of the structure is significantly diminished.

B. MAXIMUM STRESSES

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
8.189 7.905 8.057 8.812 8.947 8.258 8.669 8.336 8.258
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
5.167 5.170 5.169 5.169 5.170 5.179 5.179 5.388 5.388
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
3.881 3.755 4.000 4.000 3.755 3.461 3.461 4.309 4.309
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
Table 3. Summary of Maximum Tresca Shear Stress (N/mm2)

10 8.812 8.947
8.258 8.669 8.336 8.258
Tresca Shear Stress N/mm2

9 8.189 7.905 8.057

8 CANTILEVER
7 ABUTMENT
6 5.167 5.17 5.169 5.169 5.17 5.179 5.179 5.388 5.388
5 4 4 4.309 4.309 2 COUNTERFORT
3.881 3.755 3.755
4 3.461 3.461 SYSTEM
3 ABUTMENT
2
3 COUNTERFORT
1
SYSTEM
0
ABUTMENT
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 6. Summary of Maximum Tresca Shear Stress (N/mm2)

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
8.360 7.664 7.648 9.071 9.048 8.287 8.711 8.577 8.287
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
4.861 4.875 4.859 4.859 4.875 4.919 4.861 4.919 4.861
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
3.010 3.246 2.803 2.803 3.246 3.815 3.815 2.359 2.359
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
Table 4. Summary of Maximum Von Mises Stress (N/mm2)
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

10 9.071 9.048
8.36 8.711 8.577
9 8.287 8.287
7.664 7.648
Von Mises Stress N/mm2

8 CANTILEVER
ABUTMENT
7
6 4.861 4.875 4.859 4.859 4.875 4.919 4.861 4.919 4.861
5 2 COUNTERFORT
3.815 3.815
4 3.01 3.246 3.246 SYSTEM
2.803 2.803
3 2.359 2.359 ABUTMENT
2 3 COUNTERFORT
1 SYSTEM
0 ABUTMENT
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 7. Summary of Maximum Maximum Von Mises Stress (N/mm2)

The summary of maximum solid stresses in the abutment for different load combinations is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. In the
present study it is found that the as the number of counterforts in abutment configuration is increased the maximum stresses in
resulting in the structure decrease significantly.

C. MAXIMUM PRESSURE UNDER FOUNDATION

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
57.34 96.93 84.55 66.09 53.71 87.62 87.36 56.78 67.26
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
57.18 101.36 101.10 93.15 93.41 91.72 91.45 83.50 83.76
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
57.57 101.75 101.49 92.76 93.03 92.10 91.84 83.11 83.38
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
Table 5. Summary of Maximum Foundation Pressure (T/m2)
120.00

100.00 CANTILEVER
ABUTMENT
Foundation Presure T/m2

80.00

60.00 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
40.00 ABUTMENT

20.00 3 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
0.00
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 8. Summary of Maximum Foundation Pressure (T/m2)

The summary of maximum pressure under foundation is tabulated in Table 5. In the present study it is observed that the foundation
pressures in all 3 configurations in different load combinations are nearly same. Hence increase of counterforts does not significantly
affect the resulting foundation pressure.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

D. FACTOR OF SAFETY

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
CANTILEVER
2.01 1.20 1.20 6.01 6.01 1.64 1.64 2.43 2.43
ABUTMENT
2
COUNTERFORT
2.08 1.26 1.26 5.72 5.72 1.71 1.71 2.48 2.48
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
3
COUNTERFORT
2.08 1.26 1.26 5.72 5.72 1.71 1.71 2.48 2.48
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
Table 6. Summary of Safety Factor against Sliding

7
Factor of Safety against Sliding

6
CANTILEVER
5 ABUTMENT
4
3 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM ABUTMENT
2
1 3 COUNTERFORT
0 SYSTEM ABUTMENT
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - 0.3 - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - 0.3 - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx EQx 0.3 EQx

Figure 9. Summary of Safety Factor against Sliding

The summary of calculated safety factor against sliding is summarized in Table 6. In the present study it is observed that the number
of counterforts in abutment configuration does not significantly affect the overall factor of safety against sliding.

E. OVERALL COST

Tentative Cost
₹ 9,659,793.32

₹ 9,507,932.56

₹ 7,975,320.26 3 Counterfort
₹ 10,000,000.00
2 Counterfort
₹ 5,000,000.00
Cantilever
₹-

Cantilever 2 Counterfort 3 Counterfort

Figure 10. shows the abstract of quantity and cost for 3 different abutment configurations

The quantity estimate for earthwork, concreting and steel reinforcement for the 3 abutment structures was worked out. It was
observed that there is no significant difference in the cost between 2 counterfort structure and 3 counterfort structure. However the
cost of counterfort configuration is found to be around 21% higher than the conventional cantilever type abutment.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
VII. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis
procedure and results-
1. From the deflection study of the structure under all
load combinations it is observed that the maximum
longitudinal deflection occurs due to lateral earth
pressure on the abutment in static case. The
deflection due to static lateral earth pressure is about
75% of the total deflection.
2. The comparison of the 3 configurations shows that
deformation in the abutment structure significantly
decreased with the addition of counterforts to the
system. The deflection of 3 counterfort system is just
17% of the total deflection in the cantilever type
system without counterforts. As the stiffness of the
system is enhanced with the inclusion of
counterforts, the overall deflection is reduced. The
permissible deflection limits in IRS Concrete Bridge
Code are laid down as to such an extent which will
not affect adversely the appearance or efficiency of
the structure. In such context, the counterfort system
is found to be more efficient.
3. In the present study M30, M35 and M40 grade of
concrete is considered for design and analysis and
gives satisfactory results. For taller structures
requiring more strength and durability analysis with
higher grade of materials can be performed and
studied. Increasing the grade of concrete for tall
structures also increases the Elastic Modulus and
thus decreases the deformation response of the
structure. It is found that with increase of concrete
grade from M35 to M40 the deflection of structure
reduced by 6-7%.
4. From the solid stress analysis and plastic failure
criterion it is found that the resulting stresses in the
abutment stem are reduced with addition of
counterforts. The stresses in the 3 counterfort
configuration are 1/3 rd of the stresses in the
cantilever configuration. Reduction in stresses will
lead to lower crack widths and avoid chances of
corrosion of steel. Thus the counterfort system is
also effective in enhancing the durability of the
structure.
5. In the present study it is observed that introduction
of counterforts to the tall abutments increases the
stiffness of the structure, however it does not
significantly affect the pressure below foundation
and factor of safety against sliding.
6. In the present study for a 30m tall abutment of a
railway bridge founded on hard soil, it was observed
that an abutment with 3 counterfort system is most
rigid and undergoes least deformation. In case of rail
bridges the formation width is usually 7.85m and
therefore abutment width is also restricted to 7.85m.
Hence it is not practicable to provide more than 3
counterforts.
7. It is observed from the study that the deformation of
abutment under Dead Load and Live Load are
insignificant as compared to the deformation for
Lateral Earth Pressure and Surcharge Pressure.
Hence it is safe to say that in tall abutment structures,
the earth pressure and seismic forces govern the
design requirements. Further, if the angle of internal
friction of backfill is increased by blending of
granular material the Coulombs Active Earth
Pressure coefficient can be reduced which will also
reduce the stresses and moments.
8. The Coulombs Active Earth Pressure coefficient
(Ka) is influenced by several factors among which
wall angle is one of the factors and determines the
shape of the failure wedge. In case of cantilever
abutment configuration, the wall can be vertical and
thus the wall angle is zero. However for counterfort
configuration due to the inclined back face of
counterfort, the failure plane is pushed backwards.
Therefore the wall angle increases which in turn
increases the Ka value and resulting lateral pressure
on the abutment. Thus it is found in the present study
that the counterfort arrangement attracts more lateral
earth pressure.
9. In the present study Seismic Zone II and III has been
considered. Displacement is not always the best
indicator of bridge performance during large
earthquakes. For structures in more vulnerable
Seismic Zones (Zone IV and V) further study using
Time History Method and Non Linear Pushover
Analysis Methods of Seismic Design need to be
taken up for appropriate assessment of the design
alternatives.
10. In The 3 counterfort system, the two end
counterforts can also function as a part of the square
return to retain the embankment fill thus reducing
the overall cost of the abutment with wing
wall/square return configuration.
11. A comparative cost analysis of the 3 configurations
was further studied to determine the financial
implication of the design alternatives. It observed
that the counterfort structure is costlier than a
conventional cantilever structure. 3 counterfort
configuration abutment was found to be 21%
costlier than the cantilever configuration structure.
 International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENT excitation." Earthquake Engineering & Structural

The authors are thankful to MIDAS global technical centre, Dynamics36, no. 12 (2007): 1719-1740.
Navi Mumbai and Civil Engg Department of CET 19. Wilson, John C., and Boon S. Tan. "Bridge abutments:
formulation of simple model for earthquake response
Bhubaneswar for the technical support to carry out this
analysis." Journal of Engineering Mechanics 116, no. 8
research work.
(1990): 1828-1837.
20. Wilson, John C., and Boon S. Tan. "Bridge abutments:
formulation of simple model for earthquake response
REFERENCES analysis." Journal of Engineering Mechanics 116, no. 8
(1990): 1828-1837.
1. IRS Bridge Rules -2014 (Including correction slips)
2. IRS Code of Practice for Plain, Reinforced & Pre-stressed
concrete for general bridge construction Concrete Bridge
Code 2014 (Including correction slips)
3. IRS Code of Practice for the design of Substructure &
Foundations 2013 (Including correction slips)
4. IRS Code for Earthquake Resistant Design of Railway
Bridges 2017
5. BS 114 RDSO Guidelines for carrying out Rail Structure
Interaction Studies 2016
6. Mario Paz, Structural dynamics (4th Edition),
(international Thomson publishing)
7. Analysis and Economic Implications of Tall Pier Bridges
under Seismic Condition
8. S Ponnuswamy, Bridge engineering, (Tata McGraw hill)
9. Dr. J Victor, Essential of bridge engineering, (oxford &
IBH publishing co. Pvt. Ltd.)
10. Zheng, Qingxiang, and Wenhua Liu. "Seismic design of
high piers for mountain bridges." ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 5, no. 9 (2010).
11. Dhwani M. Patel and Umang Parekh “Analysis of Tall
Bridge Piers” IJSTE - International Journal of Science
Technology & Engineering Volume 2, Issue 11 May 2016
12. M.G. Mahamuni and Dr. S.K. Kulkarni “Effects of
Backfill and Foundation soil on Analysis of Bridge
Abutment” IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific
Research & Development Vol. 5, Issue 05, 2017
13. Patel Nirav M and Prof. Deepa H. Raval – “Analysis and
Economic Implications of Tall Pier Bridges under Seismic
Condition” IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific
Research & Development Vol. 3, Issue 03, 2015
14. Chaturvedi D “Comparative Study of Alternative Designs
of Abutments for bridges” Department of Civil
Engineering, IIT Roorkee
15. Li, Xiao Li, Dong Liang Li, Dong Sheng Wang, and Zhi
Guo Sun. "Research review of seismic failure mode of
abutment and influence on deck fall-off." In Applied
Mechanics and Materials, vol. 90, pp. 1467-1472. Trans
Tech Publications, 2011.
16. Li, Xiao Li, Dong Liang Li, Dong Sheng Wang, and Zhi
Guo Sun. "Research review of seismic failure mode of
abutment and influence on deck fall-off." In Applied
Mechanics and Materials, vol. 90, pp. 1467-1472. Trans
Tech Publications, 2011.
17. Kawashima, Kazuhiko. "An analytical model of contact
and impact in dynamic response analysis." In Proceedings
of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 1981, no.
308, pp. 123-126. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1981.
18. Kotsoglou, Anastasios, and Stavroula Pantazopoulou.
"Bridge–embankment interaction under transverse ground