Choice of Foundation For Brigdes
Choice of Foundation For Brigdes
Choice of Foundation For Brigdes
Foundation types depend primarily on the depth and safe bearing pressures of the bearing
stratum, also restrictions placed on differential settlement due to the type of bridge deck.
Generally in the case of simply supported bridge decks differential settlements of about 20 to 25
maximum.
i. Strip footings, one for each pier and abutment. However, it is sometimes convenient to
split the deck into two halves longitudinally along the centre line, this is then continued to
the footing.
It is possible to have a combination of both (i.e. piers being piled with abutments on strip
footings).
Design Considerations
i. From the site investigation report decide upon which stratum to impose the structure load
ii. Select the type of foundation, possibly comparing the suitability of several types.
iii. Design the foundation to transfer and distribute the loads from the structure to the
ground. Ensure that the factor of safety against shear failure in the soil is not reached and
Strip Footings
The overall size of strip footings is determined by considering the effects of vertical and rotational
loads. The combination of these two must neither exceed the safe bearing capacity of the stratum
nor produce uplift. The thickness of the footings is generally about 0.8 to 1.0 m but must be
The critical shearing stress may be assumed to occur on a plane at a distance equal to the
Cover to reinforcement should never be less than values given in BS 5400: Part 4: Table 13, and
crack control calculation must be carried out to ensure the crack width is less than 0.25mm (Table
1). Cover to reinforcement will need to be increased to comply with BS 8500 requirements.
Piled Foundations
a. Driven Piles; preformed piles of concrete or steel driven by blows of a power hammer or
b. Preformed Driven Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by driving a hollow steel tube with a closed
c. Driven Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by driving a hollow steel tube with a closed end and
d. Bored and Cast In-Situ Piles; formed by boring a hole and filling it with concrete.
a. to c. are known as displacement piles, and the problems of calculating the load carrying
capacity and settlement require a different approach to that for bored piles.
Driven type piles can, depending on the strata, be either end bearing or friction piles; sometimes a
combination of both.
Bored piles are generally end bearing and are often of large diameter. To increase their bearing
capacity the bottom can be under-reamed to produce a greater bearing area. However, additional
A specialist form of pile consisting of stone aggregate consolidated by water or air using the
Choice of pile type depends largely on the strata which they pass through, none of them however
give the most economic and satisfactory solution under all conditions.
The art of selecting the right sort of pile lies in rejecting all those types which are obviously
unsuited to the particular set of circumstances and then choosing from those which remain, the
Concurrently with the choice of pile type must go the choice of the strata which will carry the main
loads from the structure, because this very often influences the choice. In most all cases the
rejection of conventional pad or strip foundations arises because the computed settlement is more
than the structure can safely withstand and hence the main purpose of the piled foundation will be
to reduce this settlement. It follows, therefore, that if more compressible strata exists within
reasonable distance of the surface, it is very desirable that a high proportion of the foundation load
should be carried by this more stable strata; the ideal solution is where piles support the load
wholly in end bearing on hard rock where the settlement will be negligible. It follows that piles
wholly embedded in the same soil that would under-lie a conventional foundation has very little
effect in reducing settlement. With soft normally consolidated alluvial clays, the remoulding effect
of driven piles may well increase the settlement of the soil under its own dead weight and thus
All foundations must satisfy two criteria, no shear failure in the soil and no excessive settlement;
piled foundations also have to meet this criteria. There are well established methods for ensuring
that the first criteria is met, but the second presents more of a problem. The working load of an
individual pile is based on providing an adequate factor of safety against the soil under the toe
failing in shear and the adhesion between the shaft and the soil surrounding it passing its ultimate
value and the whole pile sinking further into the ground. There are basically four methods for
i. Through soil parameters i.e. summing shaft friction and bearing capacity. The ultimate
bearing capacity is usually modified to compensate for the driving effect of the pile.
iii. By means of dynamic formulae i.e. Hiley formulae which equates the energy required to
Current practice is to make decks integral with the abutments. The objective is to avoid the use of
joints over abutments and piers. Expansion joints are prone to leak and allow the ingress of de-
icing salts into the bridge deck and substructure. In general all bridges are made continuous over
intermediate supports and decks under 60 metres long with skews not exceeding 30 are made
Where it is intended not to use road salts, or the deck and substructure have been designed to
incorporate deck joints then the following guidance is given in BD 33/94 for the range of
The minimum of the range is given to indicate when the type of joint may not be economical.
BS 5400 Part 2 Chapter 5.4 specifies maximum and minimum effective bridge temperatures which
The width of joint between the end of the deck and the abutment is set during construction of the
bridge; usually when the concrete curtain wall is cast. The maximum expansion of the deck is
therefore determined from the minimum effective temperature at which the curtain wall is allowed
to to be cast; usually 2C. Hence if a maximum effective temperature of 40C is calculated from
BS 5400 Part 2 then a joint width will have to be provided at the end of the deck to allow for an
The maximum contraction of the deck is determined in a similar manner, but using a nominal
Having determined the range of movement at the joint then the type of joint can be specified. The
nominal effective temperature used in the calculations will also have to be specified to enable the
BS EN 1317-1:1998 describes a Vehicle Parapet as a safety barrier that is installed on the edge of
a bridge or on a retaining wall or similar structure where there is a vertical drop, and which may
contain additional protection and restraint for pedestrians and other road users.
Manufacturers have developed and tested parapets to meet the containment standards specified in
the codes. Much of the earlier testing work was involved with achieving a parapet which would
absorb the impact load and not deflect the vehicle back into the line of adjacent traffic. The weight
of vehicle, speed of impact and angle of impact influence the behaviour of the parapet.
Consequently a level of containment has been adopted to minimise the risk to traffic using the
BS EN 1317-2 1998 specifies criteria for vehicle impact tests on parapets for various containment
levels. The containment levels adopted by TD 19/06 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume
2, Section 2, Part 8) require testing to be carried out for various vehicles impacting the parapet at
an angle of 20o.
The vehicle impact test criteria for various containment levels as follows :
Metal Parapets are designed and tested by manufactures who apply to the Highways Agency to be
included on an Approved List. A copy of the "Highways Agency's Approved Road Restraint System
website http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/tech_info/en_1317_compliance.htm
TD19/06 is the current design standard which requires carrying out a risk assessment to identify
The risk assessment is documented by using an Excel spreadsheet, a copy of which can be
websitehttp://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/tech_info/rrrap.htm
TD 19/06 also directs the designer to use BS 6779 and BS 7818 for the design of specific elements
of parapets.
Part 1: Metal Parapets for the provision of infill to parapets (see TD 19/06 clause 4.29, 4.39,
4.40)
Part 2: Concrete Parapets for the design of reinforced concrete parapets with some amendments
Part 4: Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Parapets to assess the containment capacity of
This Standard is required for the manufacture and installation of pedestrian restraint systems until
such times as the drafting of prEN 1317-6 is completed (see TD 19/06 clause 9.3).
Design Considerations
The height;
The length;
Concrete parapets are ideal for very high containment parapets due to their significant mass.
Steel parapets are generally the cheapest solution for the normal containment. This is significant if
the site is prone to accidents and parapet maintenance is likely to be regular. The steelwork does
Aluminium parapets do not require surface protection and maintenance costs will be reduced if the
parapet does not require replacing through damage. The initial cost is however high and special
attention to fixing bolts is required to prevent the parapets from being stolen for their high scrap
value. Aluminium also provides a significant weight saving over the steel parapet. This is
Wherever possible slender piers should be used so that there is sufficient flexibility to allow
temperature, shrinkage and creep effects to be transmitted to the abutments without the need for
A slender bridge deck will usually look best when supported by slender piers without the need for a
downstand crosshead beam. It is the proportions and form of the bridge as a whole which are
vitally important rather than the size of an individual element viewed in isolation.
Design Considerations
iii. Horizontal loads from temperature, creep movements etc and wind
The overall configuration of the bridge will determine the combination of loads and movements
that have to be designed for. For example if the pier has a bearing at its top, corresponding to a
structural pin joint, then the horizontal movements will impose moments at the base, their
Sometimes special requirements are imposed by rail or river authorities if piers are positioned
within their jurisdiction. In the case of river authorities a 'cut water' may be required to assist the
river flow, or independent fenders to protect the pier from impact from boats or floating debris. A
similar arrangement is often required by the rail authorities to prevent minor derailments striking
the pier. Whereas the pier has to be designed to resist major derailments. Also if the pier should
be completely demolished by a train derailment then the deck should not collapse.
Choice of Wing Wall
Wing walls are essentially retaining walls adjacent to the abutment. The walls can be independent
Providing the bridge skew angle is small (less than 20), and the cutting/embankment slopes are
reasonably steep (about 1 in 2), then the wing wall cantilevering from the abutment wall is likely
fixing of the steel reinforcement is more complicated than the conventional wall.
Design Considerations
The stability of the wall is generally designed to resist 'active' earth pressures (Ka); whilst the
structural elements are designed to resist 'at rest' earth pressures (Ko). The concept is that 'at
rest' pressures are developed initially and the structural elements should be designed to
accommodate these loads without failure. The loads will however reduce to 'active' pressure when
the wall moves, either by rotating or sliding. Consequently the wall will stabilise if it moves under
Zw = Z1 + 1/x [(L+K)Sin]
Y
ie. Tan = Tan + / X Cos
For known lengths of wall (L+K) two values of can be obtained from eqn.(1).
Example
Minimum Lengths :-
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges BD 30/87 requires surface water to be drained away
from earth retaining structures or backfill. This will normally allow the retaining wall or abutment
to be designed with zero ground water pressure on the back of the wall above the perforated
drainage pipe level; this leads to a considerable cost saving. An instance where hydrostatic
pressures will need to be considered is where there is a possibility of a burst water main in the
Any water percolating through the fill is collected in a perforated drainpipe, not less than 150mm
diameter, which is located at the rear of the vertical stem of the wall at the level of the top of the
footing. Access to the pipe should be provided for rodding purposes from inspection manholes
positioned at the foot of the wall. Weep holes are often provided as a safeguard in the event that
the drainpipe is blocked; they also provide a visual check that the system is working.
Unless the backfill to the wall is highly permeable then a vertical drainage layer is provided at the
rear of the wall and is connected with the perforated drainpipe.
The vertical permeable layer shown in the diagram above consists of hollow concrete blockwork,
2. or
There are also proprietary systems on the market, such as Terram Geocomposite Drains, but they
Special consideration to the drainage layer is required when the backfill contains materials
susceptible to piping such as silt, chalk or PFA. Under these conditions then a granular drainage