20010106

Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 1 ( 2001)
Computer-aided limit states analysis of bridge

abutments
Murat Dicleli
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering and Construction
Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois 61625, USA
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACTS
This paper presents a computer program developed for limit states analysis of abutments. The program
can perform both structural and geotechnical analysis of bridge abutments and check their resistances in
compliance with limit states design criteria. In the program, the earth pressure coefficient for the backfill
soil is calculated as a function of abutments lateral non-linear displacement. Therefore, for abutments
partially restrained against lateral movement, an earth pressure coefficient less than that of at-rest
conditions may be obtained. This may result in a more economical design.
KEYWORDS
Bridge, abutment, foundation, limit-state-design, soil-structure-interaction, optimization
1. Introduction
Limit states are conditions under which a structure can no longer perform its intended functions.
The limit states design (LSD) process considers two conditions to satisfy; the ultimate and the
serviceability limit states. The ultimate limit states (ULS) are related to the safety of the
structure and they define the limits for its total or partial collapse. The serviceability limit states
(SLS) represent those conditions, which adversely affect the expected performance of the
structure under service loads.
LSD has received particular attention in the geotechnical and structural engineering literature
over the last three decades. Many researchers and practicing engineers have documented their
findings on this subject [1-18]. Guidance with the application of limit state design procedures is
available through a number of design codes [1922]. However, the application of LSD to
substructures is more recent. In the past, substructure design was based on allowable stress or
working stress design (WSD), while the superstructure design was based on LSD. The use of
LSD philosophy for superstructures and WSD philosophy for substructures led to confusions.
The confusion potentially exists with respect to loading at soil-structure interface for the
evaluation of ultimate limit states (ULS). The structural engineer employing the LSD approach
for the design of substructures thinks in terms of factored loads to be supported by the bearing
soil. The geotechnical engineer using WSD approach in soil bearing capacity assessment thinks
in terms of nominal loads and allowable soil pressures. Therefore, the geotechnical report
provides the structural engineer with the values of allowable soil pressure. The structural
engineer then interprets the meaning of the recommended soil pressure and factors it in an effort
to compare it with the responses due to factored structural loads. Nevertheless, the
recommended soil bearing pressure may be controlled by settlement considerations or SLS
rather than bearing failure considerations or ULS. Obviously, a sense for the actual level of
safety has been lost through the incompatible design process. The foundation may be over-
designed resulting in loss of economy rather than the improved economy that LSD is supposed
74
e
e
JSE
JSE
International
to provide. Therefore, it became evident that a limit state approach was required for
geotechnical design.
The LSD process for the design of bridge abutments is more tedious than WSD process. It
requires two different analyses to satisfy the structure performance for both SLS and ULS. The
ULS itself requires more than one analysis to satisfy the geotechnical and the structural limit
states. Generally, designers try to obtain the optimal structure dimensions to satisfy the limit
states criteria by following a trial-and-error analysis and design procedure. Nevertheless, a
manually performed trial-and-error analysis and design iteration to obtain the optimal structure
dimensions and reinforcement under different loading conditions and given limit states criteria
could be inaccurate, tedious and time consuming. Considering these, a computer program,
ABA, for the analysis and design of bridge abutments has been developed.
In the subsequent sections, first, the general features of the program, ABA are described. This is
followed by a brief description of the general program structure. Next, the procedure used in the
program for calculating backfill pressure coefficient is defined. Then, the LSD procedure
implemented in the program for bridge abutment design is introduced. This included the
procedure for checking the stability of the structure for sliding and overturning and the
calculation of base pressure, pile axial forces, structural responses and resistances. Following
this, simple design-aid charts for retaining walls are introduced.
2. General features of the program
ABA is capable of analyzing bridge abutments and retaining walls and checking their structural
and geotechnical resistance using LSD criteria. Retaining walls are programmed as a sub-
element of abutments and therefore the word abutment will mean both retaining wall and
abutment thereafter.
2.1 Abutment Geometry
ABA analyses the general type of reinforced concrete abutment shown in Figures 1(a) and (b).
The generic shape of the abutments wing-wall is defined in Fig. 1(c). In the program, the
geometry of the abutment can be modified by assigning constraints to its dimensions. The
ballast-wall and the breast-wall parts of the abutment obtained by assigning various constraints
to their dimensions are illustrated in Figures 2(a) and (b).
The geometry and local coordinate axes of the abutment footing are shown in Fig. 3. For
abutments with deep foundations, piles are defined in rows extending along X2 footing local
coordinate axes as shown in Figures 4(a) and (b). The number of piles in a row and the location
of each row from the centroid of the footing are input by the user. Each row may have piles with
identical batters perpendicular to row direction. If a row contains piles with different batters,
then it may be defined as a combination of two or more rows of piles located at the same
distance from the centroid of the footing. The piles at both ends of each row may also have
batters parallel to row direction. The piles are assumed to have constant spacing within a row
and located symmetrically with respect to the X1 footing local coordinate axis.
2.2 Loads
The types of loads allowed by the program to act on the abutments are; concentrated loads at the
bearings, surcharge pressure, backfill soil pressure, soil compaction load, self weight of the
abutment, backfill soil and barrier walls on wing-walls. The concentrated loads may belong to
one of permanent, transitory or exceptional load groups shown in Table 1. Surcharge pressure is
assumed to act over the entire surface area of the backfill soil at the abutment top level. It may
belong to either permanent or transitory load group. The backfill soil pressure is either
75
calculated internally by the program as a function of structure lateral displacement or it can be
defined externally by the user. The user defines compaction load at the surface of the backfill
soil. The program then internally defines the linearly varying lateral earth pressure due to this
compaction load. The program also internally calculates the self-weight of the abutment,
backfill soil, and barrier-walls-on-wing-walls.

(c) Wing-wall
Abutment plan
X1
X1
X2
X3
(a) Abutment plan
view
1
(b) Section 1
Ballast wall
Breast wall
Bearing
(Typ.)
Wing-wall
(Typ.)
Cleat (Typ.)
Fig. 1 - Abutment geometry
76

(a) Ballast wall geometric configuration
(b) Breast wall geometric configuration
Fig. 2 - Geometric configurations of ballast and breast walls

(b) Typical footing cross-section
B
1

h
D
(a) Abutment footing plan
X
1

X
2

B
1

B
2
e
Fig. 3 - Footing geometry
77

(b) Elevation
(a) Pile geometry
X
1

X
2

Row 1 Row 4 Row 2 Row 3
Fig. 4 - Pile geometry for deep foundations
3. General program structure
ABA consists of a control program that manages the database, an analysis and design engine
and a graphical user interface (GUI) for user data input. Fig. 5 illustrates the program structure.
The analysis and design engine consists of three modules; abutment analysis module, footing
analysis module and resistance module. The abutment analysis module performs the analysis of
the abutments excluding the footing part. The footing analysis module then performs the
analysis for the footing part of the abutment or it can be operated independently. The resistance
module then calculates the structural resistance of any specified cross-section on the structure.
As shown in Fig. 5, the control program first allows the user to define the properties of the
abutment and its footing using the GUI. The user-defined data is then stored in a structured
database, which contains material, geometry, loading data and control flags. The program then
uses this database for the analysis and design of the abutment. The control program operates the
necessary sub-module depending on the analysis type. If footing is analyzed as part of
abutment, then the control program first initiates the abutment analysis module. Next, it stores
the footing load data, obtained from the abutment analysis module, in the database. Then, it
calls the footing analysis module to complete the analysis. Finally, it calls the resistance module
to perform structural resistance calculations.
4. Calculation of earth pressures
In the program, separate earth pressure conditions are considered behind the abutment for
geotechnical and structural LSD. For the geotechnical LSD, active earth pressure condition is
considered behind the abutment as the structure is assumed to rotate at its base or displace away
from the backfill at the verge of geotechnical limit state conditions such as overturning or
sliding of the structure. Such movements will mobilize the soil to an active state of equilibrium.
For structural LSD, the structure is assumed to have no such movements. Accordingly, an earth
78
pressure ranging between active and at-rest conditions is considered for the structural design of
the abutment.

Abutment
Analysis
Module
DATABASE
Footing
Geometry
Abutment
Geometry
Abutment
Loads
Footing
Loads
Flags Materials
Control
Program
GUI
Footing
Analysis
Module
Resistance
Module
Fig. 5 - Program structure
The actual earth pressure coefficient, K, may change between active, K
a
and at-rest, K
o
, earth
pressure coefficients depending on the amount of lateral deformation of the abutment due to the
permanently applied loads. Past researchers obtained the variation of earth pressure coefficient
as a function of structure top displacement from experimental data and finite element analyses
[17, 23]. For practical purposes, this variation is assumed as linear as shown in Fig. 6. This
linear relationship is expressed as:
a o
K d K K
(1)
Where, d is the top displacement of the earth retaining structure away from the backfill soil and
, is the slope of the earth pressure variation depicted in Fig. 6. The calculated top displacement
of the abutment and the active and at-rest earth pressure coefficients are substituted into the
above equation to obtain the actual earth pressure coefficient for the structural design. A similar
approach was followed elsewhere [24, 25] to estimate the passive earth pressure coefficient for
the backfill soil for the design of integral-abutment bridges. In the program, Coulomb theory
[26] is used to calculate the active and at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients assuming zero
friction between the wall surface and the backfill. The effect of backfill slope on the active earth
pressure coefficient is also considered in the program.
Structure Model
The structure models shown in Fig. 7 are used in the program for the calculation of abutment
top displacement. Only the effects of unfactored dead loads and backfill pressure are considered
in the calculations. The eccentricities due to the dead load reactions on the bearings are also
taken into consideration by applying a concentrated moment at the point of application of the
dead loads on the structure model. The abutment is modeled as a cantilever having a unit width
and a variable cross-section along its height. The cantilever element is then connected to the
footing member. The footing is modeled as a vertical rigid bar with a rotational spring
79
connected to its end. The length of this rigid bar is set equal to the footing depth, h
f
. The
rotational spring at the end of the rigid bar simulates the effect of footing rotation on the
magnitude of abutment top displacement. The loads acting on the abutment are proportioned to
the unit width of the abutment.

K
d
K
o

K
a

1

Fig. 6 - Variation of earth pressure coefficient as a function of abutment displacement

K
2f

K
b

K
2f

F
b

(a) Abutment (b) Abutment model with
elastomeric bearings
(c) Abutment model with
frictional bearings
h
f

B
1

h
a

e
b
C

L

D
D
D x e
b

D
D x e
b

Fig. 7 - Structure model for the calculation of abutment displacement
The bridge deck may restrain the lateral displacement of the abutment. The degree of this
restraint is based on the type of bearings used. For frictional bearings, the restraining force is
equal to the total dead load reaction force on the bearing, multiplied by the coefficient of
friction for the type of bearing used. In the program, first a fictitious rigid lateral support is
introduced in the structure model at the bearing location. Next, the lateral reaction force due to
the applied loads is calculated at this support. If the restraining force provided by the bearings
is smaller than this reaction force, it is applied at the bearings' location in the model as shown
in Fig. 7. Otherwise, the movement is assumed to be totally restrained and the earth pressure
coefficient is set equal to K
o
. For elastomeric bearings, the restraining force is proportional to
80
the lateral displacement of the abutment at bearing's location and the stiffness of the bearing. A
spring with stiffness identical to that of the elastomeric bearings is placed at the bearing location
as shown in Fig. 7 to simulate the restraining effect of the bearings. The stiffness of this spring
per unit width of abutment is expressed in the program as:
a b
b b b
b
w h
A G n
K
(2)
Where, n
b
is the number of bearings, G
b
is the shear modulus of the bearing material, A
b
is the
plan area of the bearing, h
b
is the bearing height and w
a
is the total width of the abutment.
For bearings providing lateral fixity at the abutments, the movement is assumed to be restrained
and the earth pressure coefficient is set equal to K
o
. In the case of cantilever retaining walls, no
restraint is considered in the displacement calculation.
The stiffness of the rotational spring in the model is determined by the rotational stiffness of the
footing. For shallow foundations, the rotational stiffness, K
f
, of the footing is expressed as
[27]:
s 2
3
1 f
k B B
12
1
K
(3)
Where, B
1
and B
2
are the plan dimensions of the footing respectively parallel and perpendicular
to the bridge longitudinal directions and k
s
is the coefficient of sub-grade reaction for the
bearing soil input by the user. In the case of pile foundations, the rotational stiffness of the
foundation is calculated in the program as [27]:
2
i
p
p p
nr
1 i
i f
d
L
A E
n K

(4)
Where, nr is the number of pile rows, E
p
is the modulus of elasticity of pile material, A
p
and L
p
are respectively, the cross-sectional area and length of a single pile and d
i
is the distance of pile
row i, from the geometric centerline of the footing.
A closed form solution for the reaction forces at the translational and rotational springs in the
model is obtained for each type of load applied on the structure and implemented in the
program.
Calculation of Top Displacement
The displacement,
*
T
, at the top of the abutment is calculated in the program using the
following equation.
dx
I E
M
m h h
K
M
a
h
a c
f a
f
b
T

+ +
0
) (
(5)
Where, M
b
is the total moment at the footing base, M and m are moments, respectively, due to
the externally applied loads and a horizontal unit dummy load applied at the top of the
abutment, E
c
is the modulus of elasticity of abutment concrete and I
a
and h
a
are respectively the
moment of inertia and height of the abutment. The first set of terms in the above equation
represents the contribution of footing rotation to the top displacement. The integration
represents the contribution of the abutments flexural deformation to the top displacement and is
obtained using the unit dummy load method [28]. Note that the expression, M/E
c
I
a
, in the
integral is the curvature of the abutment due to the applied loads. The integration is performed
numerically using the trapezoidal rule of numerical integration method [29]. The structure
model is first divided into 100 segments and the resulting segment length is used as an
integration step. The moment, M, due to externally applied loads is then calculated at each
81
point of integration. Next, the inelastic curvature ( =M/E
c
I
a
) corresponding to the applied
moment and axial force is calculated using nonlinear material models for concrete and steel to
obtain an accurate estimate of structure displacement. The procedure followed to calculate the
curvature is defined in the subsequent sections. The moment, m, due to the unit dummy load is
also calculated at the integration points and multiplied by the calculated curvature and an
integration factor which is a function of the type of numerical integration method used. For this
particular case, the integration factor is 0.5 for the first and last points of integration and 1.0 for
the rest. Finally, the top displacement due to the flexural deformation of the abutment is
obtained by summing up the results obtained for each integration point and multiplying the sum
by the integration step.
Material Models
In the calculation of non-linear curvatures, the following constitutive relationship is used for
concrete stress, f
c
, in compression, as a function of concrete strain
c
[30]:
01
2
01
085
1
'
2

1
1
]
1
,
_

c
o
c
co c
for f f
(6)
cu c 01
01 085
co
1 o c co c
for
f 15 0
f f

<
,
_

'
'
.
) ( (7)
Where, f'
'
co
is the specified strength of abutment concrete,
01
, and
085
are the strains at peak
and 85% of the peak strength.
For concrete stress in tension, the following linear constitutive relationship is used:
cr c c c c
for E f
(8)
cr c c
for f > 0
(9)
Where, E
c
is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and is expressed as:
'
co c
f 5000 E (10)

cr
is the strain at cracking and is expressed by the following equation;
c
co
cr
E 2
f
'
(11)
For the stress, f
s
, in reinforcing steel, the following elasto-plastic stress-strain relationship is
assumed.
y s s s s
for E f
(12)
y s y s
for f f >
(13)
The strain hardening part of the stress-strain relationship for steel is not considered in the above
equations, since under service loads the stress in steel will not reach the strain hardening region.
Calculation of Moment Curvature Relationship
In the program, to calculate the curvature corresponding to an applied moment, M, and an axial
force, P, at a cross-section along the abutment, first, an extreme fiber compressive strain,
cu
, is
assumed for concrete as shown in Fig. 8. The slope of the strain diagram is established for an
assumed location, c, of neutral axis measured from the top of the section. Corresponding
compressive and tensile stresses in concrete and steel are determined from material models
described above. Internal forces in concrete, as well as reinforcing steel are calculated. The
section is divided into rectangular strips for the purpose of calculating compressive forces in
concrete as shown in Fig. 8. First, the concrete stress at the middle of each strip is calculated
82
and multiplied by the area of the strip. Then, the results are summed up to obtain the total force
due to compressive concrete stresses. To calculate the tensile forces in concrete, first, the depth
of the uncracked concrete tension zone, c
cr
, is determined by dividing the strain of concrete at
cracking by the slope of the strain diagram. The volume of the concrete tensile stress diagram
over the area of the uncracked tensile zone is then calculated to obtain the total force due to
tensile concrete stresses. Once the internal forces are computed, the equilibrium is checked by
comparing them with the externally applied axial forces. If the equilibrium is satisfied within a
prescribed range of accuracy, the assumption for neutral axis location is verified. Otherwise, the
neutral axis location is revised and the same process is repeated until the equilibrium is
satisfied. Next, the internal moment is calculated and compared with the moment due to the
applied loads. If the difference is smaller then an assumed tolerance value, the analysis is
stopped, otherwise, the program continues the analysis with the next selected extreme
compression fiber strain. At the end of the analysis the extreme fiber compression strain is
divided by the distance to neutral axis to calculate the inelastic curvature, .

strips P
M
n.a

c
f
c

f
cr

F
sc

F
sty

Cross-section Strain diagram Forces
cr

c
cr

cu

Fig. 8 - Internal strains and stresses at abutment cross-section
5. Implemented LSD analysis procedure
In the program, the following SLS and ULS conditions are considered for geotechnical and
structural design of the abutment..
Geotechnical:
SLS soil resistance for shallow foundations or SLS pile axial resistance for deep foundations,
ULS soil resistance for shallow foundations or ULS pile axial resistance for deep foundations,
Structure stability for sliding and overturning at ULS
Structural:
(i) Crack width limitations for concrete at SLS
(ii) Shear and flexural strength of the abutment at ULS
The ULS conditions are checked using separate factors of safety on loads and structure
resistance. The ULS load combinations and maximum and minimum values of load factors are
shown respectively in Tables 1 and 2 [22]. Table 3 tabulates the resistance factors for various
geotechnical ULS conditions [22] used in the program. The SLS conditions for abutments are
checked using unfactored loads and structure resistance. The load combination used in the
program for SLS is also illustrated in Table 1.
The three-dimensional effects of applied loads and structure weight, including the weight of the
wing-walls, are considered in the program for the geotechnical and structural design of the
abutment foundation. For sloping backfill soil conditions, the effect of vertical component of
earth pressure is also considered in the foundation's design. The total weight of the backfill soil,
including the sloping part, is averaged as a uniformly distributed load and applied on the
83
footing's top surface. The procedure used in the program for the structural and geotechnical
analysis of the structure components is described in the following sub-sections.
Optimization of Load Effects
In the program, each load is input separately with an identification number (ID) and a type ID as
shown in Table 2. The load effects are factored and combined according to their type ID using
the load combinations in Table 1. Each load may have more than one case of application, or
load-case. For example, to define the possible detrimental effects of live load on an abutment
footing, more than one load case may be considered to maximize the effects of sliding,
overturning and base pressure. Obviously, these cases can not be combined simultaneously as
they belong to the same live load applied at various locations on the bridge. Nevertheless, the
one, which results in the most detrimental effect, is output as an envelope response.
For the analysis of the abutment, a maximum and a minimum factored horizontal load is
combined with a maximum or a minimum factored vertical load. The combinations that result
in the most detrimental load effect are used for geotechnical and structural resistance checks.
The correlation between the minimum and maximum load factors shown in Table 2 for
permanent loads is considered when combining the loads to optimize their detrimental effect on
the structure. For example, the maximum load factor for lateral earth pressure loading is used
with the minimum load factor for the structure weight to maximize the effect of overturning.
However, in another case, the maximum load factor for structure weight is considered when
maximizing the effect of axial load on piles for deep foundations. Some transient loads are also
removed if their effect is counteracting the detrimental effect of other applied loads. For
example, the live load on the structure is removed if its effect is favourable to the strength or
stability of the structure. It is noteworthy that all possible load combinations are considered
regardless of their resulting effects on the structure. However, at the end, the envelope responses
due to such load combinations are used to check if the structure has adequate resistance to
endure the applied loads.
Base Pressure Calculations for Shallow Foundations
The forces applied on a foundation produces horizontal and vertical stresses in the ground. The
aim of shallow foundation design is to ensure that those stresses do not exceed the ultimate
resistance of the foundation soil and do not cause deformations that will affect the serviceability
of the structure. Accordingly, for abutments with shallow foundations, two sets of soil pressure
limits are used in the program to check the geotechnical capacity of the bearing soil. One of
them is expected to satisfy the resistance aspect at ULS and the other one is expected to satisfy
the criteria associated with the tolerance of either the soil or the structure to deformation at the
SLS [22]. The program analyzes the abutment foundation for both ULS and SLS conditions.
The condition, which yields the lower of the values for factored geotechnical resistance at ULS
or geotechnical reaction at SLS, then governs the geotechnical design of the foundation.
For the ULS design of abutment footings, a contact pressure of uniform distribution is assumed
such that the centroid of the vertical component of the applied load coincides with the vertical
component of the bearing pressure as shown in Fig. 9. Accordingly, the dimensions, b
1
and b
2
of
the uniform pressure block, are expressed in the program as follows:
1 1 1
e 2 B b (14)
2 2 2
e 2 B b (15)
Where, B
1
and B
2
are the plan dimensions of the footing and e
1
and e
2
are the eccentricities of
the applied load parallel to B
1
and B
2
faces of the footing. It is noteworthy that the effect of
lateral forces acting on the footing surface is carried to the base of the foundation when
84
calculating the eccentricities [31]. The ULS base pressure, q
f
, due to a factored eccentric
resultant vertical load, P
Rf
, on the footing, is then calculated as follows:
2 1
b b
P
q
Rf
f
(16)
Where, q
f
represents a minimum resistance expected from the soil and it is compared with the
ultimate bearing resistance, q
u
, of the foundation soil. In the program, the effect of horizontal
load on the ultimate bearing resistance of the foundation soil is taken into consideration using a
reduction factor, R, expressed as follows:
'
+
+
+
+
+
+
2
2
2
2
2
2
x 94 0 x 63 1 1 R 00 2 b D
x 22 1 x 92 1 1 R 00 1 b D
x 50 1 x 20 2 1 R 50 0 b D soil cohesive Non
x 80 1 x 50 2 1 R 25 0 b D
x 22 2 x 76 2 1 R 125 0 b D
x 57 0 x 30 1 1 R soil Cohesive
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
(17)
Where, D, is the depth of the soil in front of the abutment measured to the base of the footing, b
is the effective width of the ULS pressure block in the direction of interest and x is the ratio of
the factored horizontal load to vertical load. The above expression is based on Meyerhof's
[32,33] bearing resistance equations for an angle of internal friction of 30
o
. The user-input
ultimate bearing resistance is adjusted by dividing it by the reduction factor calculated using the
above expression. In the program, linear interpolation is used to obtain the reduction factors for
values of D/b other then those defined in the above equation.

Centroid of loads
Plan
Elevation
Elevation
b
2

b
1

e
1

e
2

e
1

e
2

X
1

X
2

Fig. 9 - Base pressure at ULS
Equation 17 indicates that the ultimate bearing resistance of the foundation soil is a function of
the applied loads. Accordingly, in the program, the load combination, which causes the most
detrimental effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of ultimate base pressure to ultimate
bearing resistance.
85
For the SLS design of abutment footing, the foundation soil is assumed to respond elastically.
Consequently, a linear elastic distribution of contact pressure is used in the analysis. The
abutment footing is assumed to be infinitely rigid for analysis purposes. In the program, the
SLS pressure, q, at the footing corners is first calculated using the following equation and
assuming that all corners are in compression.
2
2
1
1
S
M
S
M
A
P
q
Rf Rf Rf
t t
(18)
Where A is the plan area of the footing, M
Rf1
and M
Rf2
are the resultant moments, respectively
about X1 and X2 footing local axes, due to the applied loads and S
1
and S
2
are section modulus
of the footing about X1 and X2 footing local axes. If the above expression results in a tensile
pressure at one or more corners of the footing, then, the expressions derived by Wilson [ 34] are
used in the analysis. Wilson [34] presented three sets of equations to calculate the actual
pressure distribution for the cases where one, two and three corners of the footing are in tension.
In the program, for each load combination, the maximum of the calculated SLS base pressure at
four corners of the footing is stored in an array. The load combination, which causes the most
detrimental effect, is then obtained by optimizing the ratio of the maximum SLS base pressure
to user-input SLS bearing resistance.
Resistance of Shallow Foundations to Horizontal Loads
For the ULS design of abutment footings resting on soil, the sliding failure at the interface
between the footing and the soil is considered in the program. The resistance of the footing to
sliding is generated by the passive earth pressure in front of the abutment as well as cohesion
and friction at the footing-soil interface. The contribution of the passive earth pressure in front
of the abutment is generally neglected in the calculation of sliding resistance since there is
always a possibility that the soil could somehow be disturbed. Accordingly, the following
equation is used in the program to calculate the resistance, H
r
, of the footing to sliding.
tan
Rf ar e r
P C A H +
(19)
Where, A
e
is the effective area of contact pressure, C
ar
is the factored apparent cohesion and is
the angle of friction. In the program, the load combination, which causes the most detrimental
effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of factored horizontal load to factored sliding
resistance of the foundation.
Stability of Shallow Foundations
In the program, at the ULS, the eccentricity of the vertical load is restricted to 30% of the
footing dimension in the direction of the eccentricity [22]. This is done to limit the local bearing
stresses in the soil to avoid the possibility of a bearing failure towards the rear of the footing or
overturning. The eccentricity of the factored vertical load is first calculated for each load
combination. The ratio of this eccentricity to the calculated eccentricity limit is optimized in the
program to determine the load combination, which causes the most detrimental effect.
Calculation of Pile Forces for Deep Foundations
For abutment footings resting on piles, assuming that the pile-cap is infinitely rigid, the axial
force, N
i
, in pile, i, is calculated using the following equation:
i
p
Rf
i
p
Rf
p
Rf
i
x
I
M
x
I
M
n
P
N
1
2
2
2
1
1
t t
(20)
Where n
p
is the number of piles, x
1i
and x
2i
are the distances of pile i from the local footing axes
origin respectively in X1 and X2 directions. The moments of inertia of pile group, I
p1
and I
p2
respectively about X1 and X2 footing local axes are expressed as:
86
p
n
1
2
i 1 1 p
x I (21)
p
n
1
2
i 2 2 p
x I (22)
The axial force, N
bi
, on a battered pile i, is then obtained using the following equation:
2
p
i bi
b
1
1 N N +
(23)
Where, b
p
is the pile batter. In the program, the load combination, which causes the most
detrimental effect, is obtained by optimizing the ratio of calculated pile axial load to the
geotechnical axial capacity of the pile.
Resistance of Deep Foundations to Horizontal Loads
The horizontal forces acting on the footing are resisted by the pile batters and the reaction forces
produced upon horizontal movement of the foundation. The passive earth pressure in front of
the piles as well as the shear forces resulting from pile displacement produces this latter
resistance. Due to the complex nature of soil-pile interaction, which is a function of various
parameters such as number of pile rows, pile spacing etc. [35], this horizontal resistance is not
calculated by the program and is provided by the user. However, the horizontal resistance due to
the pile batters is calculated in the program as the sum of the horizontal components of
calculated axial forces on battered piles. The total horizontal resistance is then obtained in the
program by summing up the calculated horizontal resistance due to pile batters and the user-
input horizontal resistance of the pile group.
Structural Analysis of Footing
For the structural analysis of the footing, two different ULS soil pressure distributions are
considered in the program. The first case considers a contact pressure distribution due to
yielding soil, which approximates a uniform pressure distribution over an effective area, as
explained previously. This pressure distribution is primarily used to check the bearing resistance
of the soil. However, the abutment footing is also structurally designed to sustain such a
pressure. The second case assumes a nearly rigid footing and a linear contact pressure
distribution due to an elastic non-yielding soil where the probable resistance of soil may exceed
the ultimate resistance used in geotechnical design. The program then calculates the flexural and
shear forces in the footing for each contact pressure distribution. Larger of the structural
responses obtained from both cases will then govern the structural design at ULS. For the SLS
condition, only a linear contact pressure distribution is assumed. In the case of deep
foundations, flexural and shear forces in the footing are calculated using the previously
calculated SLS and ULS pile axial forces.
Normally, the program calculates flexural forces at both faces of the abutment wall and shear
forces at a distance 0.9 times the footing thickness from both faces of the abutment wall.
Additional sections can be specified by the user around pile locations in the case of deep
foundations. The calculated flexural and shear forces are then divided by the width of the
footing to obtain the effect of such forces per unit width. The structural resistance calculations
are then performed at the same response locations by the program's resistance module.
Structural Analysis of Abutment Wall
In the program, the abutment wall is modeled as a cantilever having a unit width in the
transverse direction and a variable thickness in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. The
point of fixity of the cantilever model is assumed at the footing's top surface. The loads acting
87
on the structure are proportioned to the abutment's unit width and applied on the model. In the
program, the ballast wall and the breast wall are divided respectively into 5 and 10 prescribed
locations spaced equally along the abutment height. The responses due to each applied load are
first calculated at these prescribed locations starting from the top and then combined using
Table 1. The structural resistance calculations for the abutment are also performed by the
program's resistance module at the same prescribed locations considering the combined effects
of axial, shear and flexural forces.
Structural Resistance Calculations
The optimum flexural resistance of a reinforced concrete section is a function of the applied
axial force and the extreme fiber compression strain [36, 37]. To calculate the flexural
resistance of a cross section along the structure for a prescribed axial force, the extreme fiber
compression strain,
cu
, for concrete is varied between 0.0020 and 0.0035 using an incremental
step of 0.0001. For each incremental strain value, the slope of the strain diagram is established
for an assumed location, c, of neutral axis measured from the top of the section as shown in
Figure 8. Corresponding compressive and tensile stresses in concrete and steel are determined
from material models described previously. Internal forces in concrete, as well as reinforcing
steel are calculated. The equilibrium is checked by comparing the resultant internal force with
the externally applied axial force. If the equilibrium is satisfied within a prescribed range of
accuracy, the assumption for neutral axis location is verified. Otherwise, the neutral axis
location is revised and the same process is repeated until the equilibrium is satisfied. Next, the
internal moment is calculated and stored in an array. The program then continues the analysis
with the next selected extreme compression fiber strain until it reaches the maximum value of
0.0035. At the end of the analyses, the maximum of the stored moments is selected as the
flexural resistance of the section.
The compression field theory [22,38] is implemented in the program to calculate shear
resistance of a cross section on the structure. The shear resistance, V
r
, of a reinforced concrete
section without transverse reinforcement is defined as [22]:
v v cr c r
d b f V
(24)
where, is a dimensionless parameter,
c
is the resistance factor for concrete, b
v
and d
v
are
respectively the effective section width and depth used in shear resistance calculations. To
calculate , the angle of inclination, , of principle compressive strain or shear cracks is varied
between 27
o
and 79
o
using an incremental step of 1
o
in the program. For each incremental value
of , the reinforcement tensile strain,
x
, is calculated using the following equation:
( )
0
A E
d
M
Cot V P 5 0
s s
v
f
f f
x

+ +
.
(25)
Where, P
f
, V
f
and M
f
are respectively the factored axial load, shear and moment acting on the
cross section and E
s
and A
s
are respectively the modulus of elasticity and area of reinforcing
steel. Then, the principal tensile strain,
1
, and are calculated as:
( )
2
x 1
1 cot +
1
1 500 1
66 0
d 69 0
3 0
36 0
cot .
sin
.
.
.
(26)
Where, d is the distance of tensile reinforcement from the extreme compression fibre. The value
of is stored in an array and the procedure is repeated for the next incremental value of
until it reaches the maximum value of 79
o
. At the end of the analysis, the maximum of the
stored values is used in Equation 24 to calculate the shear resistance of the section.
88
6. Design-aid for cantiliver retaining walls
The program, ABA, is used to obtain the design-aid Tables 4-9 for cantilever retaining walls.
The tables are used in conjunction with Figures 10 and 11. The design-aid tables are generated
for a granular backfill material with a unit weight of 22 kN/m
3
and an angle of internal friction
of 30
o
. This backfill material is commonly used in transportation structures [22]. The unfactored
SLS and ULS bearing resistances of respectively 250 kPa and 750 kPa are used for the
foundation soil as conventional design values. The effective angle of friction for the foundation
soil is assumed as 30
o
. The compressive strength of concrete is 30 MPa and the yield strength
of steel is 400 MPa. Hydrostatic pressure is not included in the analysis assuming that the water
will be properly drained throughout the granular backfill material.
In Fig. 10, q
1
and q
2
are the maximum bearing pressures assuming respectively a linear pressure
distribution at SLS and a uniform pressure distribution at ULS. V and P are respectively the
total ULS vertical and horizontal forces obtained for the most critical load combination for
sliding. In Figure 11, each set of bars is indicated by a letter. The number of T bars are for each
face of footing or wall. The maximum spacing of T bars is 300 mm and the lap is 600 mm. The
dimensions in the figure are in mm.

Y
A
B D C
E
q
1

Cover
1200
to
2200
H
q
2

1
25
V
P
Fig. 10 - Retaining wall dimension parameters
Tables 4 and 5 provide design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with zero surcharge pressure
and level backfill slope. Table 4 provides dimensions of the wall as a function of its height for
1200 mm and 2200 mm toe soil cover to frost depth. Table 5 provides the length, size and
spacing of reinforcement as well as steel and concrete quantities as a function of wall height.
Tables 6 and 7 provide similar design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with a live load
surcharge pressure of 13.2 kPa, a commonly used design parameter in North America. Tables 8
and 9 provide design-aid for cantilever retaining walls with a backfill slope of 2 horizontal to 1
vertical.
89

N
R
70
M - 15M
F
100
70
T Ftg
T Wall
L
S - 15M
B
D
M Bar
R=300
483
R=300
D
471
B
L Bar
Fig. 11 - Retaining wall reinforcement parameters
7. Conclusions
A computer program, developed for the limit states analysis of bridge abutments, is presented in
this paper. Although several other computer programs exist for the analysis of bridge abutments,
they are limited to cases where working stress design approach is used for the geotechnical
analysis of the structure. Different from these conventional programs, the developed program is
able to perform both structural and geotechnical analysis of bridge abutments and check their
resistance to calculated responses using limit states design criteria. In the program, the earth
pressure coefficient for the backfill soil is calculated as a function of abutments lateral
displacement taking into consideration the non-linear force-deformation relationship of the
structure. Therefore, for abutments partially restrained against lateral movement, an earth
pressure coefficient less than that of at-rest conditions may be obtained. This may result in a
more economical design. Design-aid charts for cantilever retaining walls are also generated
using this program.
REFERENCES
1. Meyerhof, G.G. Safety factors in soil mechanics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1970; 7:
349-355.
2. Meyerhof, G.G. Limit states design in geotechnical engineering. Structural Safety 1982; 1:
67-71.
3. Meyerhof, G.G. Safety Factors and limit states analysis in geotechnical engineering.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1984; 21: 1-7
4. Meyerhof, G.G. Development of geotechnical limit state design. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Limit State Design In Geotechnical Engineering .
Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society, 1993; 1: 1-12.
5. Meyerhof, G.G. Development of geotechnical limit state design. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 1995; 32: 128-136.
6. Lumb, P. Safety factors and probability distribution of soil strength. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 1970; 7: 225-242.
7. Allen, D. E. Limit States Design - A probabilistic study. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 1975; 2: 36-49.
8. Allen, D. E. Limit states criteria for structural evaluation of existing buildings. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 1991; 18: 995-1004.
90
9. MacGregor, J.G. Safety and limit states design for reinforced concrete. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering 1976; 3: 484-513.
10. Bolton, M. D. Limit state design in geotechnical engineering. Ground Engineering 1981;
14(6): 39-46.
11. Balkie, L. D. Total and partial factors of safety in geotechnical engineering. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 1985; 22: 477-482.
12. Ovesen, N.K. Towards an european code for foundation engineering. Ground Engineering
1981; 14 (7): 25-28.
13. Ovesen, N.K. Eurocode 7: An european code of practice for geotechnical design.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limit State Design In Geotechnical
Engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society, 1993; 3: 691-710.
14. Ovesen, N. K. and Orr, T. Limit States Design: the european perspective. Proceedings of
Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991;
Special Publication No 27, 2: 1341-1352.
15. Green, R. The development of a LRFD code for Ontario bridge foundations. Proceedings
of Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991;
Special Publication No 27, 2, 1365-1376.
16. Green, R., (1993), LSD Code for Bridge Foundations, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering. Copenhagen: Danish
Geotechnical Society, 1993; 2, 459-468.
17. Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M. K., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S. K, Kim, S.G. Manuals for the
design of bridge foundations. NCHRP Report 343. Washington D.C.: Transportation
Research Board; National Research Council, 1991.
18. Becker, D. E. Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design for
foundations. Part I. An overview of the foundation design process., Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 1996; 33, 956-983.
19. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. Third Edition, Ministry of Transportation, Quality
and Standards Division, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1991.
20. European Code for Standardization. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design, general rules.
Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1992.
21. Associate Committee on the National Building Code. National building code of Canada.
National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, 1995.
22. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code - Final Draft. Canadian Standards Association,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000.
23. Clough, G. M., Duncan, J. M. Foundation engineering handbook. Fang, H.Y. editor. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.
24. Dicleli, M. A rational design approach for prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridges.
Engineering Structures 2000; 22(3): 230-245.
25. Dicleli, M. A simplified structure model for computer-aided analysis of integral-abutment
bridges. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2000; 5(3): 1-9
26. Demetrios, E. T. Bridge engineering: design, rehabilitation and maintenance of modern
highway bridges. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
27. Priestly, M. J. N., Seible, F., Calvi, G. M. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
28. Ghali, A and Neville, A. M. Structural analysis: a unified classical and matrix approach,
3rd edition. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989
29. Maron, M. J. Numerical analysis: a practical approach, 2
nd
edition. New York: Macmillan,
1987.
30. Saatcioglu, M. and Razvi, S. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 1992; 118(9): 2421-2438.
31. Duan, L., (1996), Bridge-column footings: an improved design procedure. ASCE Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 1996; 1(1): 20-24.
91
32. Meyerhof, G.G. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechnique 1951; 2: 301-
332.
33. Meyerhof, G.G. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads.
Proc., 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Zurich: 1953; 1: 440-445.
34. Wilson, K. E. Bearing pressures for rectangular footings with biaxial uplift. ASCE Journal
of Bridge Engineering 1997; 2(1): 27-33.
35. Rollins, K., Peterson, K. Weaver T. Full scale pile group lateral load testing in soft clay.
NCEER Bulletin 1996; October: 9-11.
36. MacGregor, J.G. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design, 2
nd
edition. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1992
37. McCormac, J. C. Design of reinforced concrete, 4
th
edition. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1999.
38. Collins, M.P., Mitchell, D. Prestressed concrete basics. Ottawa: Canadian Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 1987.
92
Appendix
Table 1 -Load factors and load combinations
Limit
State
Permanent Loads Transitory Loads Exceptional Loads
D E P L K W V S EQ F A H
SLS-1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-1 D E P
1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-2 D E P
1.60 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-3 D E P
1.40 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-4 D E P
0.00 1.25 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-5 D E P
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ULS-6 D E P
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00
ULS-7 D E P
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00
ULS-8 D E P
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

A : Ice accretion load
D : Dead load
E : Loads due to earth, surcharge or hydrostatic pressure
F : Loads due to stream pressure and ice forces or debris torrents
H : Collusion load
K : Strains and deformations due to temperature variation, creep and shrinkage
L : Live load
P : Secondary prestress load
EQ : Earthquake load
S : Load due to foundation deformation
V : Wind load on traffic
W : Wind load on structure
D : Load factor for load type D
E : Load factor for load type E
P : Load factor for load type P
Notes
Bar Area (mm2) Diameter (mm)
10M 100 11.3
15M 200 16.0
20M 300 19.5
25M 500 25.2
30M 700 29.9
35M 1000 35.7
The yield strength of steel is 400 MPa.
93
Table 2 - Load types and load factors
Type ID Definition LS
Group
Load Factor
Max. Min.
D1 Factory produced components excluding wood All 1.10 0.95
D2 Cast-in-place concrete, wood, non-structural comp. All 1.20 0.90
D3 Wearing surfaces based on nominal thickness All 1.50 0.65
D4 Earth fill, negative skin friction on piles All 1.25 0.80
D5 Water All 1.10 0.90
E1 Passive earth pressure All 1.25 0.50
E2 At-rest earth pressure All 1.25 0.80
E3 Active earth pressure All 1.25 0.80
E4 Backfill pressure All 1.25 0.80
E5 Hydrostatic Pressure All 1.10 0.90
P Secondary prestress effect All 1.05 0.95
L Live load SLS 1 0.90 0.00
ULS 1 1.70 0.00
ULS 2 1.60 0.00
ULS 3 1.40 0.00
K Loads due to temp. variation, creep and shrinkage SLS 1 0.80 0.00
ULS 2 1.15 0.00
ULS 3 1.00 0.00
ULS 4 1.25 0.00
W Wind load on structure ULS 3 0.50 0.00
ULS 4 1.65 0.00
V Wind load on traffic ULS 3 0.50 0.00
S Load due to foundation deformation SLS 1 1.00 0.00
EQ Earthquake load ULS 5 1.00 0.00
F Loads due to stream pressure and ice forces or debris torrents ULS 6 1.30 0.00
A Ice accretion load ULS 7 1.30 0.00
H Collusion load ULS 8 1.00 0.00
Table 3 - Geotechnical resistance factors
Foundation Type Geotechnical Resistance Factor
Shallow Foundations Bearing resistance 0.5
Passive resistance 0.5
Sliding resistance 0.8
Deep Foundations Static analysis, compression 0.4
tension 0.3
Static test compression 0.6
tension 0.4
Dynamic analysis compression 0.4
Dynamic test compression 0.5
Horizontal passive resistance 0.5
94
Table 4 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls
(surcharge=0, backfill slope=0)
STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS (mm) GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
H A B C D E Y P
(kN)
Cover = 1200 mm Cover = 2200 mm
V
(kN)
q1, SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R V
(kN)
q1, SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R
Cohe Gran Cohe Gran
2000 970 300 370 300 300 300 17.3 37.8 86 81 0.53 0.46 --- --- --- --- ---
2500 1220 300 390 530 300 300 27.0 58.6 103 97 0.53 0.44 --- --- --- --- ---
3000 1470 300 410 760 300 300 38.8 84.7 122 115 0.53 0.42 91.3 139 129 0.55 0.49
3500 1860 540 430 890 350 300 52.8 115.0 114 102 0.53 0.38 126.9 134 119 0.56 0.47
4000 2160 640 540 980 400 400 69.0 150.2 123 111 0.53 0.37 164.3 144 127 0.56 0.46
4500 2460 730 560 1170 450 400 87.3 189.5 133 119 0.53 0.35 205.6 153 135 0.55 0.44
5000 2750 800 580 1370 500 400 107.8 233.9 145 130 0.53 0.34 251.5 165 145 0.55 0.43
5500 3100 940 600 1560 550 400 130.5 283.6 148 134 0.53 0.32 304.3 169 149 0.55 0.41
6000 3360 980 620 1760 600 400 155.3 336.5 163 147 0.53 0.31 358.1 183 162 0.55 0.40
6500 3620 1020 630 1970 650 400 182.2 394.7 179 162 0.53 0.30 417.1 199 176 0.54 0.39
7000 3940 1130 650 2160 750 400 211.3 457.9 186 169 0.53 0.29 482.7 206 183 0.54 0.38
Table 5 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls
(surcharge=0, backfill slope=0)
H
(mm)
L M N R S F T (15M) Quantity
Size Spcg D B Spcg K B D Size Spcg Lgth Size Spcg Lgth Spcg Lgth Hgt Ftg Wall Conc
(m
3
)
Steel
(kg)
2000 15M 300 222 492 300 16 412 222 15M 300 830 15M 300 1550 300 1631 600 4 6 0.86 65
2500 15M 300 242 592 300 16 412 472 15M 300 1080 15M 300 1950 300 2132 700 5 8 1.13 82
3000 15M 300 262 792 300 16 412 722 15M 300 1330 15M 300 2250 300 2632 900 6 10 1.40 99
3500 15M 300 522 1042 300 18 462 872 15M 300 1720 15M 300 2500 300 3082 1100 7 11 1.80 115
4000 15M 250 732 1192 250 20 512 1072 15M 250 2020 15M 250 2850 250 3533 1200 8 13 2.56 147
4500 20M 300 840 1440 300 22 562 1282 20M 300 2320 15M 300 3100 300 3983 1400 9 14 3.05 162
5000 20M 250 930 1590 250 24 612 1502 20M 250 2610 15M 250 3450 250 4434 1500 10 16 3.58 201
5500 20M 250 1090 1840 250 26 662 1712 20M 200 2960 15M 250 3700 250 4884 1700 11 17 4.18 227
6000 20M 200 1147 1987 250 28 712 1932 25M 250 3220 15M 200 4050 250 5334 1800 12 19 4.77 284
6500 25M 200 1197 2237 300 30 762 2152 30M 300 3480 15M 200 4300 300 5785 2000 13 20 5.37 327
7000 30M 300 1325 2435 300 34 862 2362 30M 300 3800 20M 300 4720 300 6185 2100 14 22 6.24 350
95
Table 6 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=13.2 kPa)
Table 7 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls (surcharge=13.2 kPa)
H
(mm)
L M N R S F T (15M) Quantity
(m
3
)
Steel
(kg)
2000 15M 300 222 492 300 16 412 542 15M 300 1150 15M 300 1550 300 1631 600 5 6 0.95 70
2500 15M 300 242 592 300 16 412 782 15M 300 1390 15M 300 1950 300 2132 700 6 8 1.22 88
3000 15M 300 462 792 250 16 412 942 20M 300 1750 15M 300 2250 250 2632 900 7 10 1.53 120
3500 15M 200 542 1042 300 18 462 1162 20M 250 2030 15M 200 2500 300 3082 1100 8 11 1.91 141
4000 20M 300 680 1190 300 20 512 1392 20M 200 2290 15M 300 2850 300 3533 1200 9 13 2.66 160
4500 20M 250 790 1440 250 22 562 1602 25M 300 2590 15M 250 3100 250 3983 1400 10 14 3.17 195
5000 20M 200 900 1590 300 24 612 1812 25M 250 2890 15M 200 3450 300 4434 1500 11 16 3.72 230
5500 25M 250 1087 1837 250 26 662 2012 25M 250 3260 15M 250 3700 250 4884 1700 12 17 4.35 269
6000 30M 300 1255 1985 300 28 712 2212 30M 300 3610 20M 300 4170 300 5334 1800 13 19 5.00 313
6500 30M 250 1345 2235 250 30 762 2422 30M 250 3900 20M 250 4420 250 5785 2000 14 20 5.64 382
7000 30M 200 1422 2482 250 36 912 2642 30M 250 4180 20M 200 4670 250 6135 2100 15 21 6.71 450
DIMENSIONS (mm) GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
H A B C D E Y P
(kN)
V
(kN)
q1, SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R V
(kN)
q1, SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R
Cohe Gran Cohe Gran
2000 1290 300 370 620 300 300 27.6 60.3 90 80 0.53 0.42 --- --- --- --- ---
2500 1530 300 390 840 300 300 39.9 86.9 111 101 0.53 0.41 --- --- --- --- ---
3000 1890 500 410 980 300 300 54.3 117.7 111 99 0.53 0.38 128.7 130 114 0.56 0.47
3500 2170 560 430 1180 350 300 70.9 153.6 125 112 0.53 0.36 166.0 143 126 0.55 0.45
4000 2430 590 540 1300 400 400 89.7 194.4 142 128 0.53 0.35 207.4 160 142 0.55 0.44
4500 2730 680 560 1490 450 400 110.6 239.8 153 137 0.53 0.34 254.7 171 151 0.55 0.42
5000 3030 770 580 1680 500 400 133.7 289.6 163 146 0.53 0.32 306.6 181 160 0.54 0.41
5500 3400 940 600 1860 550 400 158.9 344.8 164 148 0.53 0.31 365.5 183 162 0.55 0.40
6000 3750 1090 620 2040 600 400 186.3 403.8 167 152 0.53 0.29 427.7 187 166 0.55 0.38
6500 4040 1170 630 2240 650 400 215.8 467.3 179 163 0.52 0.28 493.1 199 177 0.54 0.37
7000 4320 1230 650 2440 800 400 247.5 536.9 193 175 0.53 0.28 212 212 189 0.54 0.36
96
Table 8 - Geotechnical design aid for cantilever retaining walls (backfill slope=2:1)
DIMENSIONS (mm) GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
H A B C D E Y P
(kN)
V
(kN)
q1, SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R V
(kN)
q1 , SLS
(kPa)
q2, ULS
(kPa)
R
#1 #2 Cohe Gran #1 #2 Cohe Gran
2000 1460 400 370 690 300 300 36.3 78.7 71 65 72 0.58
#2
0.38
#1
--- --- --- --- --- ---
2500 2020 630 390 1000 300 300 59.4 128.8 71 71 80 0.58
#2
0.33
#1
--- --- --- --- --- ---
3000 2590 820 410 1360 300 300 89.4 193.5 74 79 89 0.58
#2
0.30
#1
211.6 95 92 105 0.61
#2
0.40
#1
3500 3100 850 430 1820 350 300 128.4 278.1 88 94 107 0.58
#2
0.28
#1
296.8 107 106 120 0.60
#2
0.38
#1
4000 3530 900 540 2090 400 400 168.0 363.9 101 109 123 0.58
#2
0.27
#1
383.7 119 119 135 0.60
#2
0.36
#1
4500 4010 930 560 2520 450 400 219.0 474.3 117 125 142 0.58
#2
0.25
#1
494.7 134 135 153 0.60
#2
0.34
#1
5000 4520 1020 580 2920 500 400 275.4 596.6 129 139 157 0.58
#2
0.24
#1
619.0 145 148 168 0.60
#2
0.32
#1
5500 5040 1130 600 3310 550 400 337.9 731.7 139 151 172 0.58
#2
0.23
#1
756.6 155 161 183 0.59
#2
0.31
#1
6000 5560 1260 610 3690 700 400 406.2 879.7 148 164 187 0.58
#2
0.22
#1
907.5 164 173 197 0.59
#2
0.30
#1
6500 6080 1390 630 4060 850 400 480.2 1040.0 157 176 202 0.58
#2
0.21
#1
1070.6 173 185 211 0.59
#2
0.28
#1
7000 6860 1910 630 4320 1150 400 553.8 1199.2 138 171 207 0.58
#2
0.20
#1
1241.0 157 182 214 0.59
#2
0.27
#1
Table 9 - Structural design aid for cantilever retaining walls (backfill slope=2:1)
H
(mm)
L M N R S F T (No.) Quantity
(m
3
)
Steel
(kg)
2000 15M 300 322 492 300 16 412 612 15M 300 1320 15M 300 1550 300 1631 600 6 6 1.01 76
2500 15M 300 572 592 300 16 412 942 15M 250 1880 15M 300 1950 300 2132 700 8 8 1.37 107
3000 15M 250 782 792 250 16 412 1322 20M 250 2450 15M 250 2250 250 2632 900 10 10 1.74 158
3500 20M 300 830 1040 300 18 462 1802 25M 300 2960 15M 300 2500 300 3082 1100 11 11 2.23 196
4000 20M 300 990 1190 300 20 512 2182 25M 300 3390 15M 300 2850 300 3533 1200 13 13 3.10 241
4500 20M 250 1040 1440 250 22 562 2632 25M 250 3870 15M 250 3100 250 3983 1400 14 14 3.75 304
5000 20M 200 1147 1587 300 24 612 3052 25M 250 4380 15M 200 3450 300 4434 1500 16 16 4.47 407
5500 25M 250 1277 1837 250 26 662 3462 30M 300 4900 20M 250 3820 250 4884 1700 18 17 5.25 492
6000 30M 300 1415 2085 300 32 812 3852 30M 300 5420 20M 300 4070 300 5234 1800 19 19 6.57 530
6500 30M 250 1565 2335 250 38 462 4242 30M 300 5940 20M 250 4320 250 5584 2000 21 20 8.08 615
7000 30M 250 2085 2735 250 50 1263 4502 25M 250 6720 20M 250 4420 250 5785 2000 24 20 10.90 635
97

20010106

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20010106

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20010106

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 1 ( 2001)

Computer-aided limit states analysis of bridge

You might also like