Foundations for Integral Abutments

Kenneth F. Dunker, P.E., M.ASCE1; and Dajin Liu, P.E., S.E.2

Abstract: Integral-abutment bridges have many advantages over full-height-abutment or stub-abutment bridges. Integral abutments
eliminate or reduce the number of expansion joints in bridge superstructures and simplify design, detailing, and construction. In this paper,
foundation design concepts, such as fixed-head pile, pinned-head pile, hinged abutment, fixed-base pile, prebored hole, sleeved pile, and
asymmetry are reviewed. The typical foundation type for support of integral abutments is the steel H pile. Depending on bridge length,
skew, and site conditions, other types of foundations, such as precast prestressed-concrete pile, pipe pile 共steel encased concrete pile or
metal shell pile兲, timber pile, combined H pile 共or W section兲 and drilled shaft, caisson wall, drilled shaft, sheet pile, and spread footing
can be used to support integral abutments. Several design methods and proposed limits for typical integral abutment bridges are reviewed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0680共2007兲12:1共22兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridge construction; Bridge design; Drilled shafts; Bridge abutments; Pile foundations.

Introduction
By eliminating or reducing the number of expansion joints and
expansion bearings, integral-abutment bridges reduce the cost of
construction and maintenance. This type of bridge can increase
design efficiency, add redundancy and capacity for catastrophic
events, enhance load distribution for girders or beams at bridge
ends, provide better protection for weathering-steel girders, speed
up construction, reduce tolerance problems, and provide greater
end-span ratio ranges. With these benefits, use of integral-
abutment bridges has been growing rapidly for the last decade. A
2004 survey indicated that Iowa, Colorado, and Tennessee build
the majority of their new bridges using integral abutments, and
there is a recent general increase in the use of integral abutments
in northern states 共Maruri and Petro 2005兲.
A typical longitudinal section of an integral-abutment bridge is
shown in Fig. 1. The bridge behavior under daily and annual
thermal movement cycles is affected by the superstructure type
共steel or concrete girders兲, foundation type, soil profile, backfill,
approach slabs, and pavement expansion joints. In winter, as the
bridge length shortens, the piles bend inward, abutments press
against the berms, and expansion joints at the ends of the ap-
proach slabs open. In summer, as the bridge expands, the piles
bend outward, abutments press against the backfill, and pavement
expansion joints close. Because the pile cap is integral with the
superstructure, the piles become part of the overall bridge frame.
1
Master Engineer, Iowa Dept. of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way,
Ames, IA 50010. E-mail: kenneth.dunker@dot.iowa.gov
2
Senior Bridge Engineer, Parametrix, 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000,
Portland, OR 97232; formerly, Senior Structural Engineer, Parsons, 10
South Riverside Plaza, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60606. E-mail: dliu@
parametrix.com
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on March 28, 2006; approved on April 24, 2006. This paper is
part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
Vol. 12, No. 1, February 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/2007/1-22–
30/$25.00.
For relatively short bridges almost any foundation type is accept-
able, but for longer bridges the foundation type selection and
design become important.
Typical integral-abutment bridge details cause the heads of
piles to be fixed, but this condition will cause relatively high pile
bending stresses in longer bridges. To relieve bending stresses at
the pile heads the connection may be detailed as a pinned-head
condition or the abutment detailed to create a hinge. Another
method to relieve bending stresses near the heads of piles is to
place the piles in prebored 共also called predrilled or preexcavated兲
holes. Usually longitudinal axial stresses due to expansion of the
superstructure are easily carried by the beams or girders and deck.
However, to reduce stresses the designer may add compressible
fill behind abutments.
Not all site conditions permit use of the typical integral abut-
ment configuration. In some cases, bedrock is relatively close to
the surface. For that condition the designer may choose to core
into the rock and anchor the piles in concrete cast in the cored
holes. If piles cannot be driven due to a sensitive adjacent struc-
ture, a drilled shaft may be placed at each pile location and the
pile inserted into the top of the shaft, a hybrid configuration
termed a “stabbed” shaft. To obtain more space under a bridge, a
mechanically stabilized earth 共MSE兲 retaining wall can be placed
near the integral abutment, if piles are sleeved to prevent pressure
on the wall. If right-of-way restrictions require a retaining wall
closer to the abutment, drilled shafts may be placed side by side
to form a caisson wall. These are only some of the design con-
cepts that may be used to extend the use of integral abutments to
longer bridges and difficult sites.
Most integral-abutment bridges are founded on steel H piles.
However, some bridge owners allow more options in the choice
of foundation type, including precast prestressed-concrete pile,
pipe pile 共steel encased concrete pile or metal shell pile兲, timber
pile, drilled shaft, and spread footing.
At this time researchers are analyzing integral-abutment
bridges with complex finite element models. However, such de-
tailed analysis seldom is warranted in practice. Most states that
use integral abutments have relatively simple length and skew
rules for bridges with typical state-designed details.
Beyond the simple state limits, there are several methods for
conducting an analysis of integral-abutment piles. Research at

22 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 1. Longitudinal section of a typical single-span, integral-
abutment bridge

Iowa State University has led to two equivalent cantilever-pile

analysis alternatives, including one that considers only elastic
stresses and a second that considers plastic stresses 共Greimann et
al. 1987兲. The method was validated for two bridges 共Girton et al.
1989兲. Wasserman has developed an equivalent column procedure
by using the COM624P pile-analysis program 共Wasserman and
Walker 1996; Wasserman 2001兲, and the method has been cor-
roborated by research at the University of Tennessee 共Burdette et Fig. 2. Fixed-pile head detail used in Iowa
al. 2000, 2002, 2004兲. Another rational approach, although more
complex, is use of the COM624P program and a finite element
model. Fixed-Head Pile
In this paper, a range of design concepts, foundation types, and
design methods are presented and reviewed. For a typical integral-abutment bridge the top-of-pile connection
is detailed to provide continuity between the pile and superstruc-
ture by means of embedment, as indicated in the typical Iowa
detail in Fig. 2. Simple computations show that 300 mm embed-
Design Concepts ment in 21 MPa concrete is sufficient for fixity of an HP 250
⫻ 62 oriented for strong axis bending 共Wasserman and Walker
Generally speaking, the concept of an integral abutment is well- 1996兲. In tests conducted by the University of Tennessee, a
known and has been practiced successfully for many years. How- 300-mm embedment resulted in some cracking, but adequate per-
ever, with the more complex bridges being designed today and formance at large, lateral displacements. A 600-mm embedment
efforts to minimize long-term bridge costs, it is important to con- increased moment development at the pile head 共Burdette et al.
sider concepts for extending the use of integral abutments to 2000兲. The Iowa detail in Fig. 2 has the 600-mm embedment, as
atypical bridges. The sections below review some of the basic and well as a reinforcing spiral. More embedment and reinforcement
extended concepts for doing so. may be required for larger and stiffer piles.
For an integral-abutment bridge, the overall concept is to ac-
commodate the expansion and contraction with annual tempera- Pinned-Head Pile
ture fluctuations by flexibility in the abutment foundations and
pavement expansion joints, rather than by bridge expansion In situations where it is desirable to reduce axial stress in the
joints. An estimate of the thermal expansion and contraction over superstructure, reduce maximum bending stress in the pile or
the length of the bridge is easily determined; creep and shrinkage move the maximum bending stress in the pile downward, the head
of the pile may be detailed for a pin connection. Fig. 3 illustrates
may be added. The designer then needs to consider the bridge
the use of padding to create a pinned connection at the head of a
owner’s integral-abutment specifications. Some states limit the
timber pile. An associated plan note states, “After piles are cut
total amount of movement to be taken by integral-abutment foun-
off, the upper 1000 mm, except as shown, is to be wrapped with
dations in the range from 13 to 102 mm 共Kunin and Alampalli
a double thickness of rug padding. . . .” The plan note further
1999兲. Other states limit movements indirectly by limiting bridge
length 共Maruri and Petro 2005兲.
Once movements and integral-abutment specifications are
known, the designer can use structural principles and detailing to
design the structure, considering soil-structure interaction. If the
abutments are founded on piles, the piles need to flex or otherwise
provide for movement without excessive internal bending stresses
or excessive axial stresses in the superstructure. To lessen these
stresses, design options are to: 共1兲 use the most laterally flexible
piles 共although some states may disagree兲; 共2兲 place the piles in
prebored holes or sleeves; 共3兲 hinge the tops of the piles; 共4兲
detail the tops of the piles to slip; and/or 共5兲 add compressible
material to the regions directly behind the abutments. Using a
hinged-abutment or pinned-pile head also has the effect of shift-
ing the maximum bending stresses in the pile downward away
from the pile head. Fig. 3. Pinned-pile head detail used in Iowa

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 23

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 4. Hinged-abutment concept

requires that total thickness be at least 25 mm for urethane or
polyfoam padding. Padding on the detail is stopped 75 mm below
the top of the pile.
Prestressed-concrete piles have been used in Iowa with essen-
tially the same padding detail as for timber piles 共Abendroth et
al., unpublished manuscript, 2006兲. The University of Nebraska
has tested a different padding and slip detail for prestressed-
concrete piles. The detail had a plastic foam cap 50-mm thick,
topped with an elastomeric pad and sliding bearing plate 共Kamel
et al. 1996兲.
Hinged Abutment
Some states prefer to provide hinging action by detailing the abut-
ment, rather than the pile connection with capacity to rotate as
illustrated in Fig. 4. Virginia has revised its hinged-abutment de-
tail on the basis of testing by isolating the upper and lower parts
with a 13-mm neoprene bearing strip and transferring shear with
a padded dowel 共Arsoy et al. 2004兲. Researchers termed the abut-
ment semi-integral, but others consider the abutment integral 共PCI
2001兲. Maine and Massachusetts details are very similar to the
Virginia detail. In each situation the superstructure is placed on a
neoprene pad on the abutment and superstructure is doweled to
the abutment 共Maine DOT 2003; PCI 2001兲.
Fixed-Base Pile
One approach for pile analysis is to establish an equivalent can-
tilever by estimating the depth-to-pile fixity 共Greimann et al.
1987兲. Where bedrock is close to the surface, the designer has the
opportunity to set the depth-to-fixity by design. The rock can be
cored to a predetermined depth and steel H piles anchored in
concrete in the core holes, as shown in Fig. 5. Details for the
I-235 bridge in Des Moines, Iowa, show a variable amount of
coring in response to a sloping bedrock surface. The elevation of
the bottom of the holes was set to give the piles sufficient length
to flex as the bridge expands and contracts 共Dunker and Abu-
Hawash 2005兲. With a relatively shallow depth to reach bedrock
the designer should check ductility to ensure that the pile can
sustain plastic deformation 共Greimann et al. 1987; Abendroth and
Greimann 2005兲.
Fig. 5. Fixed-base and sleeved-pile details for I-235 Ramp 5th Street
in Des Moines, Iowa
the top of the pile, and the resulting pile stiffness will limit the
bridge length. To increase flexibility the piles may be placed in
prebored holes filled with flexible material, as shown in Fig. 6.
Iowa typically makes the holes twice the diameter of the pile and
3.05-m deep. Deeper holes may be used for special conditions
共Iowa DOT 2006兲. Empty holes invite long-term maintenance
problems, so the holes should be filled with a deformable mate-
rial, such as bentonite slurry, loose sand, or pea gravel. In addition
to increasing pile flexibility, prebored holes have the advantage of
eliminating downdrag from compressible fills.
Pile Sleeve
Under tight site conditions there may not be room for the berms,
as shown in Fig. 1. Although the abutment might be extended
downward to provide a retaining wall, that configuration will not
allow for a large amount of abutment movement. As a result, the
designer may choose to place a separate retaining wall in front of
the abutment. A mechanically stabilized earth 共MSE兲 wall often
provides the most economical solution. Due to the construction
sequence for MSE wall, prebored holes are not feasible. There-
fore, the piles should be placed in corrugated-metal pipe 共CMP兲
sleeves at least twice the diameter of the pile to avoid additional
lateral pressure on the MSE wall 共Dunker and Abu-Hawash 2005;
Hassiotis et al. 2005兲. In Iowa the sleeves are filled with saturated

Prebored Hole
In relatively stiff foundation soils, piles will have minimal oppor-
tunity to flex because the soil will create a fixed condition close to Fig. 6. Prebored hole concept

24 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Summary of Design Concepts
Concept Detail Features
Fixed-head pile Fig. 2 Relatively high moment at pile head, fixity provided by 300
to 600 mm embedment
Pinned-head pile Fig. 3 Negligible moment at pile head, usually detailed with
padding
Hinged abutment Fig. 4 Negligible moment at pile head, usually detailed with
elastomeric strip and dowels
Fixed-base pile Fig. 5 Applicable for shallow bedrock, potential for insufficient
flexibility and ductility
Prebored hole Fig. 6 Increased pile flexibility, reduction of downdrag
Pile sleeve Fig. 5 Applicable for constructed fill especially adjacent to MSE
walls, increased pile flexibility, reduction of downdrag
Asymmetry Accommodation for asymmetric site conditions, limited to
moderate bridge length
sand up to the elevation where a prebored hole would begin, as
shown in Fig. 5. Above the top of sand the sleeves are filled with
bentonite slurry.
As with prebored holes the sleeves can be used to eliminate
downdrag on the piles.
Asymmetry
Although some researchers recommend that bridges be symmetri-
cal with respect to integral abutments, Iowa has used different
abutment types or width of integral abutments at the ends of
bridges to accommodate unusual conditions 共Dunker and Abu-
Hawash 2005兲. With a fixed abutment at one end and an integral
abutment at the other end, the bridge is virtually the same as a
bridge twice as long with integral abutments at both ends. In the
case of integral abutments of different widths, the bridge will
simply move more in one direction than the other. A high level of
precision is unwarranted because there always is some uncer-
tainty about the actual bridge movement. Field tests of a bridge
that was nearly symmetrical indicated that the bridge moved the
opposite of the expected direction because the dry embankment at
one end hindered movement more than the wet embankment at
the other end 共Abendroth and Greimann 2005兲.
A recently constructed set of dual Iowa bridges more than
300-m long were designed asymmetrically, each with a single
integral abutment at the low end of the bridge. Each integral
abutment had two rows of piles oriented for weak axis bending
and was adjacent to a fixed pier. At the high end of the bridge,
expansion for most of the bridge was accommodated with a finger
joint. The concept was to anchor the low end of the bridge
共Dunker and Abu-Hawash 2005兲.
The integral abutment concepts described above and summa-
rized in Table 1 are not all of the possibilities. More are described
in the next section under foundation types. Although the designer
needs to carefully consider unusual bridge configurations and site
conditions, soil-structure interactions often are not easily quanti-
fied. Engineering judgment is important and must be part of the
design process.
Foundation Types
In the United States the most common foundation for integral
abutment bridges is the steel H pile. However, in some soils a
displacement pile is needed. Some states permit precast pre-
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 25
Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
References
Wasserman and Walker 共1996兲, Burdette et al. 共2000兲
Abendroth et al., unpublished manuscript, 共2006兲;
Kamel et al. 共1996兲
Arsoy et al. 共2004兲, PCI 共2001兲, Maine DOT 共2003兲
Dunker and Abu-Hawash 共2005兲, Greimann et al. 共1987兲,
Abendroth and Greimann 共2005兲
Iowa DOT 共2006兲
Dunker and Abu-Hawash 共2005兲, Hassiotis et al. 共2005兲
Dunker and Abu-Hawash 共2005兲,
Abendroth and Greimann 共2005兲
stressed concrete piles, pipe piles, and timber piles. For relatively
short bridges, even relatively stiff foundations such as drilled
shafts and spread footings are in use.
Steel H Pile, Weak Axis
Nearly half of the states responding to a recent survey preferred
steel H piles oriented for weak axis bending; whereas, one-third
preferred the piles oriented for strong axis bending 共Maruri and
Petro 2005兲. Because several researchers have measured strains
on fixed head H piles approximating yield strains, there is concern
for pile yield. An argument for weak-axis orientation is that only
the tips of flanges will yield under large-bending stresses, leaving
the basic core of the pile to carry vertical load. Because of the
possibility of yield, Iowa prefers H piles with relatively compact
flanges. Favored sections include HP 250⫻ 85, HP 305⫻ 125, and
HP 360⫻ 174, which unfortunately, tend to be less available than
lighter HP shapes. Live, impact, and long-term dead load in end
spans cause fixed pile head moment; therefore, Iowa limits end
span lengths to 37 m for prestressed concrete beam bridges and
32 m for continuous-welded, plate-girder bridges. Overall bridge
lengths are limited to 175 m for 0° skew and 130 m at 45° skew
for prestressed-beam bridges. Overall bridge lengths are limited
to 122 m for 0° skew and 91 m for 45° skew for continuous-
welded, plate-girder bridges. Iowa policy permits longer end
spans with prebored holes deeper than the standard 3.05 m 共Iowa
DOT 2006兲.
Although several integral abutment surveys have been pub-
lished in recent years 共Maruri and Petro 2005; PCI 2001, Kunin
and Alampalli 1999兲, the tabulated state-by-state bridge and skew
limits generally are not related to type and orientation of pile. To
compare the rules for use of H piles in weak-axis bending, one
must check each state. The following are a sampling of the rules.
• New York limits structure lengths to 200 m. The maximum
skew for all spans is 45°, and maximum grade between abut-
ments is 5%. To accommodate expansion for bridge lengths of
30 m or more, each pile is driven in a preexcavated hole that
extends 2.5 m below the bottom of the abutment. For a total
bridge length of 75 m or more the designer is required to in-
vestigate orienting piles for strong axis bending to avoid flange
buckling. All piles are to be driven to a minimum penetration
of 6 m. After driving the piles the holes are filled with cushion
sand 共New York DOT 2002兲.
• West Virginia requires that the anticipated movement not ex-
ceed 50 mm and skew not exceed 30 deg. The minimum pile
 length is 3.05 m and predrilled holes are required to be 4.57 m
for piles of at least that length. Wing walls supported by the
abutment are limited to 1.83 m for straight wings and 3.66 m
for U wings 共West Virginia DOT 2004兲.
Steel H Pile, Strong Axis
Some states note that H piles are better able to resist flange buck-
ling, if the piles are oriented for strong-axis bending 共Wasserman
and Walker 1996兲, although others disagree 共Abendroth and Gre-
imann 2005兲. Tennessee limits pile movement causing strong-axis
bending to plus or minus 25 mm, for a total movement of 50 mm.
Based on that amount of movement, for prestressed-concrete
bridges the maximum length may be 244 m and for steel bridges
the limit may be 152 m 共Burdette et al. 2002兲. Colorado limits the
length of prestressed-concrete bridges to 240 m and steel bridges
to 195 m 共Colorado DOT 2002兲. Illinois prefers H piles with
strong-axis orientation for structure lengths up to 61 m, and re-
quires strong axis orientation for structure lengths between 61 and
125 m 共Illinois DOT 2003兲.
Prestressed Concrete Pile
Considering the concern about pile flexibility and behavior under
high-bending stresses, it is surprising to learn that some states
permit use of prestressed concrete piles for integral abutments. A
recent national survey conducted by Iowa State University re-
searchers indicated that seven agencies permit use of prestressed
concrete piles in integral abutments. Because Iowa counties have
an interest in using prestressed concrete piles, researchers recently
tested a county bridge in service that used two layers of carpet
padding at pile heads, similar to the Iowa timber pile detail in Fig.
3 共Abendroth et al., unpublished manuscript, 2006兲.
Although an Iowa designer used padding, and Nebraska re-
searchers have investigated a padded pile head/sliding plate detail
共Kamel et al. 1996兲, Tennessee uses prestressed concrete piles
simply embedded in integral abutments. Tennessee regularly uses
prestressed concrete piles in western Tennessee because of soil
conditions different from eastern and central Tennessee, where H
piles are used. Tennessee limits one-directional pile head move-
ment to 25 mm for H piles, but tests suggest that 38 mm also
would be a reasonable limit 共Burdette et al. 2004兲. In testing, the
prestressed concrete piles were embedded 300 mm in the abut-
ment without padding and driven without prebored holes into
undisturbed firm to moderately firm clay.
Pipe Pile „Also Called Steel-Encased Concrete Pile,
Metal-Shell Pile, and Cast-in-Place Pile…
Several states permit pipe piles in integral abutments; however,
because the piles are not as flexible as H piles the states set
shorter maximum bridge lengths. Illinois permits 356-mm diam-
eter metal-shell piles for structure lengths up to 60 m 共Illinois
DOT 2003兲. New Jersey and New York permit cast-in-place 共CIP兲
piles for structures with lengths of 50 m or less. Pipe casings for
CIP piles are required to conform to ASTM A 252, Grade 2 stan-
dards, with a minimum wall thickness of 6 mm 共New Jersey DOT
2004; New York DOT 2002兲.
Timber Pile
At this time Iowa is the only state known to permit timber piles in
integral abutments 共Kamel et al. 1996兲. Timber piles may be used
26 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
without padding for a bridge length of less than 46 m. Padding is
required for bridge lengths of 46 to 61 m 共Fig. 3兲. Skew must not
exceed 30 deg. For bridge lengths less than or equal to 40 m,
prebored holes are not required. For lengths more than 40 m,
3.05 m, prebored holes filled with bentonite slurry are necessary
共Iowa DOT 2006兲.
Combined Pile and Drilled Shaft
When adjacent structures are sensitive to vibration, or driving
problems may occur for H piles, there is an innovative option. H
piles or W shapes can be used in the top portion of the foundation,
and the bottoms of the H piles or W shapes can be embedded in
cast-in-place drilled shafts, either full length or partial length, as
shown in Fig. 7. This hybrid foundation system, called stabbed
shaft or stabbed pile, can provide the flexibility that is needed for
integral abutments, and at the same time avoid any problems as-
sociated with pile driving. H piles or W shapes in the foundation
are designed as frame members. The typical H pile allowable
stress of 41 or 62 MPa is not applicable because there is no driv-
ing operation involved 共Liu et al. 2005兲. The Fig. 7 foundation, as
detailed on final plans, is under construction for the 9th Street
Bridge over I-235 in Des Moines, Iowa, and will be instrumented
and monitored for two years.
In cases where an MSE-retaining wall is not feasible because
of right-of-way restriction, drilled shaft can be used to form a
caisson 共or drilled shaft兲 wall that provides both a retaining wall
and foundation to support integral abutments. In comparison with
conventional construction, caisson-wall construction can reduce
the structure footprint significantly. In an on-going western corri-
dor, multimodal project 共T-REX兲 in Denver, a 1220-mm diameter
caisson wall was used to support integral abutments for a box-
girder bridge. The elevation view in front of the abutment is
shown in Fig. 8. The caissons were closely spaced at 1387-mm
center to center. The gaps between the caissons were sealed with
shotcrete 共Liu et al. 2005兲.
Other
Since drilled shafts are not as flexible as H piles, drilled shafts are
rarely used to support integral abutments. The stabbed shaft dis-
cussed above is the better choice. However, in the T-REX project
in Colorado drilled shafts were used in short, simple-span,
integral-abutment bridges and in long-span, semi-integral abut-
ment, light-rail transit bridges in which expansion devices with
sliding plates and elastomeric pads were used to reduce the de-
mand for foundation flexibility 共Liu et al. 2005兲.
Evidently sheet-pile abutments have had greater use in Europe
than in the United States. Sheet-pile, integral abutments are used
in the United Kingdom 共UK兲 共England et al. 2000兲. In a few
cases, integral-sheet, pile abutments have been used for short
bridges in the United States 共Carle and Whitaker 1989兲.
Spread footings are not used often in the United States for
integral abutments, and use is limited to relatively short bridges.
In Maine this type of foundation may be used to support integral
abutments for steel structures up to 24-m long and concrete struc-
tures up to 42-m long, abutments up to 2.44-m tall, and skews up
to 25 deg 共Maine DOT 2003兲. Tennessee allows spread footings
on rock for movement of 6 mm or less at each abutment 共PCI
2001兲.
Typical integral abutments in the UK are quite different in
concept than in the United States. In the UK an integral abutment
 Fig. 7. Stabbed-shaft foundation details for 9th Street bridge over I-235 in Des Moines, Iowa

consists of a spread footing with a hinged connection to a rela-

tively tall, retaining/abutment reinforced-concrete wall made in-
tegral with a superstructure. In response to an effort to make all
bridges less than 60 m in length integral, researchers studied
granular backfill for various bridge configurations. For the stud-
ies, the abutment wall was 7-m tall and joined to superstructures
up to 160 m in length, although the focus of the research was on
40- and 60-m long bridges. Researchers found that the granular
backfill was subject to settlement and upward-ratcheting lateral
pressures. The research suggests that lateral pressures increasing
with time should be a concern for any relatively tall abutment
共England et al. 2000兲. Fig. 8. Caisson wall foundation details for T-REX project in Denver

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 27

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. Summary of Foundation Types
Type Comments
Steel H pile, weak axis Potential for yield and
low-cycle fatigue, need for
relatively compact shape
Steel H pile, strong axis Less flexible than weak axis
orientation, may be less subject to
flange buckling
Prestressed concrete pile Less flexible than H pile,
may require padding
Pipe pile Less flexible than H pile
Timber pile Less flexible than H pile,
may require padding
Combined pile and drilled shaft Accommodates sensitive
adjacent structures
Drilled shaft Minimal flexibility
Sheet pile Limited to relatively short bridges N.Y. examples
Spread footing Minimal flexibility
State policies and examples References
Iowa, N.Y., and W.Va. policies Iowa DOT 共2006兲,
New York DOT 共2002兲,
West Virginia DOT 共2004兲
Tenn., Colo., and Ill. policies Burdette et al. 共2002兲,
Colorado DOT 共2002兲,
Illinois DOT 共2003兲
Tenn. policy, Iowa example Burdette et al. 共2004兲,
Abendroth et al., unpublished manuscript, 共2006兲
Ill., N.Y., and N.J. policies Illinois DOT 共2003兲,
New York DOT 共2002兲,
New Jersey DOT 共2004兲
Iowa policy Iowa DOT 共2006兲
Iowa example, Colo. examples Liu et al. 共2005兲
Colo. example Liu et al. 共2005兲
Carle and Whitaker 共1989兲
Tenn. and Me. policies PCI 共2001兲,
Maine DOT 共2003兲

The foundation types described above are summarized in
Table 2. From the limited summary it should be obvious that there
are many additional states with integral abutment policies and
many additional examples. Design concepts combined with the
foundation types can lead to creative solutions for challenging
integral abutment applications.
Design Methods
Because of soil-structure interaction, design methods for practical
use become too complex if all possible integral abutment vari-
ables and conditions are considered. With complexity there also is
a loss of understanding of the effects of changing variables and
conditions. Experience and variations in actual test results dem-
onstrate that a high degree of precision usually is unwarranted.
Therefore, most designers select and consider the variables and
conditions in structural analysis that they consider to be most
important for success of the integral abutment, such as foundation
strength and stiffness, connection to superstructure, and strength
and stiffness of the superstructure near the abutment. Designers
then consider conditions of lesser importance when detailing the
actual abutments. In many cases, wing walls, approach pavement,
approach pavement joints, and backfill to reduce passive pressure
are considered detailing issues or separate design issues. In some
cases, overall performance is checked by monitoring. Several
states have completed monitoring projects or have ongoing stud-
ies 共Hassiotis and Roman 2005兲.
Generally, the analysis and design methods available at this
time are based on structural principles and have been checked by
testing and research. Soil-structure interaction typically is based
on a series of springs attached to piles. Piles are modeled as
equivalent cantilevers or equivalent columns. The most accessible
methods are listed in Table 3. The two most common methods are
discussed below. Table references include computation examples.
In the 1960s at the Iowa DOT, integral abutments were ana-
lyzed by moment distribution using a simple, two-dimensional
frame model of the superstructure and piles. That model undoubt-
edly raised the issue of the condition at the bottom of the piles. In
the 1980s, Iowa State University conducted research involving
pile behavior. Researchers developed an equivalent cantilever
model. The model accommodated pinned- or fixed-head piles.
The researchers developed two alternatives: Alternative 1 for
elastic behavior with column stability and column yield checks;
and Alternative 2 for plastic behavior with column stability, col-
umn yield, and ductility checks. The soil-structure analysis had
provisions for a variety of soils and prebored-hole conditions
共Greimann et al. 1987兲.

Table 3. Selected Analysis and Design Methods for H Piles in Integral Abutments
Analysis/design
Pile type/model methoda Computation method Reference
H pile, weak axis and skewed/equivalent cantilever ASD/AASHTO Hand calculator Greimann et al. 共1987兲
and ASD/AISC
H pile, strong axis/equivalent column LFD/AASHTO COM624P software Wasserman and Walker 共1996兲,
and hand calculator Wasserman 共2001兲
H pile, weak axis/equivalent cantilever Elastic/none Hand calculator PCI 共2001兲
H pile, weak axis and skewed/equivalent cantilever LFD/AASHTO, Transmove 共research兲 software Abendroth and Greimann 共2005兲
LRFD/AASHTO, and hand calculator
LRFD/AISC,
and Strength/ACI
a
ASD⫽allowable stress design; LFD⫽load factor design; LRFD⫽load and resistance factor design; AASHTO⫽American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials; AISC⫽American Institute of Steel Construction; and ACI⫽American Concrete Institute.

28 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 4. Length Limits Proposed by Researchers for Symmetrical, Integral-Abutment Bridges Supported on H Piles
Bridge Skew Yield Length
Climate material 共degrees兲 共MPa兲 共m兲 Assumptions Reference
Moderate 共Tennessee兲 Concrete 0 248 336 Test-based 35 mm movement in one direction, Burdette et al. 共2002兲
HP 250⫻ 62 in strong-axis bending, extremely stiff clay,
Steel 0 248 224 without prebored holes
Moderate Concrete 0 248 260 Low-cycle fatigue and pushover analysis, Dicleli and Albhaisi 共2004兲
Steel 0 248 180 40 mm movement in one direction,
Cold Concrete 0 248 210 medium clay or stiff clay with prebore
Steel 0 248 120
Cold 共Iowa兲 Concrete 0 248 245 Ductility for plastic bending, HP 250⫻ 62 in weak-axis Abendroth and Greimann 共2005兲
Concrete 40 248 178 bending, 2.44 m deep, prebored holes
Concrete 0 345 153
Concrete 40 345 91

Based on additional research and testing, Iowa State Univer-
sity researchers have updated the method to be more compatible
with load and resistance factor design. The ductility-limit state is
evaluated at service-level displacement magnitudes rather than at
factored load levels. Ductility of an H pile is related to the plate
ratio limits for compact flanges but further restricted to the
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲 seismic limita-
tion 共Abendroth and Greimann 2005兲.
For analysis and design of H piles, Tennessee developed an
equivalent column model. Analysis of a fixed-head pile in stiff
clay was performed with the COM624P program to determine
points of inflection. The pile between those points was treated as
a column subject to buckling. The pile could be checked with
usual column procedures 共Wasserman and Walker 1996; Wasser-
man 2001兲. Researchers with the University of Tennessee recently
tested the method and found it to be conservative. AASHTO’s and
AISC’s column formulas applied to Steel H piles, which are con-
sidered equivalent columns, give capacities less than those deter-
mined by the test. For the conditions described by the researchers,
soil provided sufficient lateral support so that slenderness had no
significant effect 共Ingram et al. 2003兲.
California Department of Transportation 共Caltrans兲 and Penn-
sylvania Department of Transportation 共Pennsylvania DOT兲 pro-
vide seismic design provisions for integral abutments. For typical
bridges, the seismic loading condition should be evaluated using
the earth pressure as appropriate for the structure type and geom-
etry. The inertial effects of the abutment and surrounding soil do
not need to be included 共Pennsylvania DOT 2000兲.
To encourage use of integral abutments and speed design of
typical bridges, many states have developed design rules based on
typical site conditions, analysis, preferred details, and experience.
These design rules vary considerably because some states arbi-
trarily impose conservative limits. What is interesting at this time
is that researchers with different viewpoints, such as lateral-load
test results, low-cycle fatigue analysis, and ductility analysis are
proposing very similar bridge length limits, as indicated in Table
4. Differences in climate and superstructure material establish the
amount of movement. That movement obviously has an effect on
maximum bridge length. Skew and yield strength of H piles also
have some effects. Although prebored holes seem necessary for
longer spans, the testing by the University of Tennessee suggests
that ultimate performance may be satisfactory without the holes.
Summary
With the advantages of simple design, easy detailing, quick con-
struction, and minimal maintenance, integral-abutment bridges
are the preferred structure type in many states. The fixed-head H
pile is the foundation type used in most integral-abutment
bridges. Other design concepts, such as pinned-head pile, hinged
abutment, fixed-base pile, and pile sleeves can also be used.
Depending on bridge lengths and site conditions, the founda-
tion systems that can be used for integral abutments include end-
bearing H piles, friction-bearing H piles, precast prestressed-
concrete piles, pipe piles 共steel-encased concrete piles or metal-
shell piles兲, combined H piles 共or W sections兲 and drilled shafts,
caisson walls, drilled shafts, sheet piles, and spread footings. Sev-
eral methods are readily available for design of typical integral
abutments.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to acknowledge HDR, Inc. for design of the
structure detailed in Fig. 5, and Parsons Corporation for the con-
cept of the structure in Fig. 7 and design of the structure detailed
in Fig. 8. Dr. Robert Abendroth at Iowa State University and a
periodical reviewer provided valuable comments and suggestions.
References
Abendroth, R. E., and Greimann, L. F. 共2005兲. “Field testing of integral
abutments.” Final Rep. HR-399, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa,
具http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/reports/hr399.pdf典.
Arsoy, S., Duncan, J. M., and Barker, R. M. 共2004兲. “Behavior of a
semiintegral bridge abutment under static and temperature-induced
cyclic loading.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共2兲, 193–199.
Burdette, E., Deatherage, J. H., and Goodpasture, D. W. 共2000兲. Behavior
of laterally loaded piles supporting bridge abutments—Phase I, Univ.
of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.
Burdette, E. G., Ingram, E. E., Goodpasture, D. W., and Deatherage, J. H.
共2002兲. “Behavior of concrete integral abutments.” Concr. Int., 24共7兲,
59–63.
Burdette, E. G., Tidwell, J. B., Ingram, E. E., Goodpasture, D. W.,
Howard, S. C., Wasserman, E. P., and Deatherage, J. H. 共2004兲. “Lat-
eral load tests on prestressed concrete piles supporting integral abut-
ments.” PCI J., 49共5兲, 70–77.
Carle, R. J., and Whitaker, S. S. 共1989兲. “Sheet piling bridge abutments.”
Proc., 14th Annual Members’ Conf., Baltimore, MD, Realizing DFI’s
Potential—A Parallel to Baltimore’s Renaissance, Deep Foundations
Institute, Hawthorne, N.J., 225, 具http://www.txi.com/downloads/
products/steel/sheet_piling_bridge.pdf典 共Jan. 24, 2006兲.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 29

Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Colorado Dept. of Transportation. 共2002兲. Bridge design manual, Colo-
rado Dept. of Transportation, Denver, 具http://www.dot.state.
co.us/Bridge/DesignManual/BridgeDesignManual.htm典 共Feb. 2,
2006兲.
Dicleli, M., and Albhaisi, S. M. 共2004兲. “Estimation of length limits for
integral bridges built on clay.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共6兲, 572–581.
Dunker, K. F., and Abu-Hawash, A. A. 共2005兲. “Expanding the use of
integral abutments in Iowa.” Proc., 2005 Mid-Continent Transporta-
tion Research Symp. 共CD-ROM兲, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa,
具http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon2005/index.htm#bridges典.
England, G. L., Tsang, N. C. M., and Bush, D. I. 共2000兲. Integral bridges,
a fundamental approach to the time-temperature loading problem,
Thomas Telford, London.
Girton, D. D., Hawkinson, T. R., and Greimann, L. F. 共1989兲. “Validation
of design recommendations for integral abutment piles.” Final Rep.
HR-272, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.
Greimann, L. F., Abendroth, R. E., Johnson, D. E., and Ebner, P. B.
共1987兲. “Pile design and tests for integral-abutment bridges.” Final
Rep. HR-273 and Addendum to HR-273, Iowa State Univ., Ames,
Iowa.
Hassiotis, S., Lopez, J. A., and Bermudez, R. 共2005兲. “Full-scale testing
of an integral abutment bridge.” Proc., 2005 FHWA Conf. on Integral-
Abutment and Jointless Bridges, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 199–210, 具http://www.cemr.wvu.edu/cfc/
conference/Proceeding.pdf典.
Hassiotis, S., and Roman, E. K. 共2005兲. “A survey of current issues on the
use of integral abutment bridges.” Bridge Structures: Assessment, De-
sign, and Construction, 1共2兲, 81–101.
Ingram, E. E., Burdette, E. G., Goodpasture, D. W., and Deatherage, J. H.
共2003兲. “Evaluation of applicability of typical column design equa-
tions to steel H-piles supporting integral abutments.” Eng. J., 40共1兲,
50–58.
Illinois Department of Transportation. 共2003兲. Bridge manual, Illinois
Dept. of Transportation, Springfield, Ill., 具http://www.dot.state.il.us/
bridges/brmanuals.html典.
Iowa Department of Transportation. 共2006兲. Bridge design manual, Iowa
Dept. of Transportation, Ames, Iowa, 具http://www.dot.state.ia.us/
bridge/manual.html典.
Kamel, M. R., Benak, J. V., Tadros, M. K., and Jamshidi, M. 共1996兲.
“Prestressed concrete piles in jointless bridges.” PCI J., 41共2兲, 56–67.
30 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 13 Nov 2008 to 202.54.26.120. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Kunin, J., and Alampalli, S. 共1999兲. Integral-abutment bridges: Current
practice in the United States and Canada.” Special Rep. 132, New
York State Dept. of Transportation, Albany, N.Y.
Liu, D., Magliola, R., and Dunker, K. 共2005兲. “Integral abutment
bridges–Iowa’s and Colorado’s experience.” Proc., 2005 FHWA Conf.
on Integral-Abutment and Jointless Bridges, Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Washington, D.C., 136–147, 具http://www.cemr.wvu.edu/cfc/
conference/Proceeding.pdf典.
Maine Dept. of Transportation. 共2003兲. “Substructure.” Maine
DOT bridge design guide, Maine Dept. of Transportation,
Augusta, Maine, 具http://www.maine.gov/mdot/technical-publications/
brdesignguide.php典 共Jan. 18, 2006兲.
Maruri, R. F., and Petro, S. H. 共2005兲. “Integral abutments and jointless
bridges 共IAJB兲 2004 survey summary.” Proc., 2005 FHWA Conf. on
Integral-Abutment and Jointless Bridges, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Washington, D.C., 12–29, 具http://www.cemr.wvu.edu/cfc/
conference/Proceeding.pdf典.
New Jersey Department of Transportation. 共2004兲. Bridges and structures
design manual, New Jersey Dept. of Transportation, Trenton, N.J.,
具http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/BDME/典 共Feb.
2, 2006兲.
New York Dept. of Transportation. 共2002兲. Bridge manual, New York
Dept. of Transportation, Albany, N.Y., 具http://www.dot.state.ny.us/
structures/manuals/man_bridge.html典 共Feb. 2, 2006兲.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation. 共2000兲. Design manual, Part 4,
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, Harrisburg, Pa., 具http://
www.dot.state.pa.us/Bridge/Standards/Pubs/Pub15M-DM4.pdf典 共Feb.
2, 2006兲.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 共PCI兲. 共2001兲. The state-of-the-art
of precast/prestressed integral bridges, Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Chicago.
Wasserman, E. P. 共2001兲. “Design of integral abutments for jointless
bridges.” Structure (London), 8共5兲, 24–33.
Wasserman, E. P., and Walker, J. H. 共1996兲. “Integral abutments for steel
bridges.” Highway structures design handbook, Vol. II, American Iron
and Steel Institute 共AISI兲, Washington, D.C.
West Virginia Dept. of Transportation. 共2004兲. Bridge design manual,
West Virginia Dept. of Transportation, Charleston, W.Va., 具http://
www.wvdot.com/engineering/files/WVBDML.pdf典 共Feb. 2, 2006兲.