Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jbren.17.00014
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
Submitted: 23 June 2017
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 10 May 2018
Manuscript title: Criteria and Guidance for the Design of Integral Bridges
Authors: Moustafa Al-Ani1, Alexei Murashev2, Alessandro Palermo3, Kaveh Andisheh4,
John Wood5, Darren Goodall6 and Nigel Lloyd7
Affiliations: 1Opus International Consultants, Auckland, New Zealand; 2Geotechnical
Engineering & Geotechnical Engineering and Risk; 3Structural Engineering and Materials,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; 4University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand; 5John Wood Consulting, Lower Hutt, New Zealand; 6Bridge
Structures, Opus International Consultants, Wellington, New Zealand and 7NZ Transport
Agency, Wellington, New Zealand
Corresponding author: Moustafa Al-Ani, WSP Opus, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel.:
64220330110.
E-mail: Moustafa.Al-Ani@wsp-opus.co.nz

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
Abstract

The design and implementation of integral and semi-integral bridges has grown in prominence in New Zealand

practice over the last two decades. New Zealand bridge designers refer to the New Zealand Transport Agency

(NZTA) Bridge Manual for design guidance. A number of issues related to the design and construction of

integral bridges were identified as requiring either further investigation or clearer guidance for local design

practice. These included non-seismic effects such as concrete creep, shrinkage and temperature, seismic effects

and geotechnical issues including soil–structure interaction. Particularly, it was noted that there are no well-

established earthquake design procedures for bridges with integral abutments and that the topic of soil-structure

interaction required further guidance. NZ Transport Agency research report 577, published in November 2015,

was developed to sit alongside the NZTA Bridge Manual and provide local engineers with the necessary

guidance for the design of integral bridges, including a description of the issues that need consideration to

ensure excellent long term performance. The report also contains details of a review undertaken of the

performance of numerous existing integral bridges in both New Zealand and California that have been subject to

strong seismic events. This paper discusses the key issues for consideration in the design of integral bridges in

non-seismic and seismic regions, the key recommendations for addressing these issues, and provides examples

of documented performance of integral bridges locally.

Keywords: Bridges; Design methods & aids; Codes of practice & standards

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
1. Introduction

Integral and semi-integral bridges are a popular form of bridge construction, providing some
marked advantages over other forms. A principal benefit is the minimising of bearings and
expansion joints through the provision of a direct connection between superstructure and
substructure, which can result in reduced construction and maintenance costs, together with
improved durability and ride quality.

NZ Transport Agency research report 577 (Wood et al, 2015), published in November 2015,
was developed with the purpose of providing local engineers with the necessary guidance for
designing integral bridges in a New Zealand context, including a description of the issues that
need to be considered to ensure long term excellent performance. The report covers both
seismic and non-seismic criteria, and provides guidance on the earthquake design procedure
for bridges with integral abutments, where there is no established methodology.

The report also considers the performance of existing integral bridges in New Zealand that
have been subjected to significant earthquake events, including specific case studies.

This paper summarises the key findings and conclusions reached in the development of
design guidance, which is available for download at the NZ Transport Agency website
(http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/577).

2. Form / Definition

While the term ‘integral bridge’ is often used in design practice in New Zealand, there can be
some ambiguity as to the strict definition of the term and how to differentiate between
‘integral’ and ‘semi-integral’ bridges. In this study, the following definitions are used for
fully integral and semi-integral bridges, based upon a review of definitions used in other
literature on the subject:
An integral bridge is a structure where there are no movement joints in the
superstructure between spans and between spans and abutments (but these joints
may exist beyond the bridge).
An integral bridge where the superstructure and substructure are also designed to
move together to accommodate the required translations and rotations (a monolithic
structure) is termed fully integral.
An integral bridge which has bearings at the abutment and/or piers and as a result,
the superstructure and substructure do not necessarily have to move together to
accommodate the required translations and rotations, is termed semi-integral.
Therefore, an integral bridge can be fully or semi-integral at the abutments and/or at the piers.

Integral bridges have been mainly constructed fully cast in place but in principle, all forms of
integral abutments and joints can be used with any precast bridge girder (Beca and Opus,
2008) if the spans are limited appropriately (up to 30–35m). The selection between precast
concrete and steel superstructure forms is governed by functional requirements and project
economics in the same manner as for traditional simply supported bridges.

Integral abutment forms such as piled abutments, spread footings, full-height abutments and
mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) walls are dictated mainly by geotechnical

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
considerations. However, detailing of the abutment-to-deck joint requires special
consideration for precast concrete superstructures, with particular attention required for:
 embedment of precast concrete beams into the abutment.
 the reinforcement detail for the moment connection between the abutment and precast
beams.
 detailed construction staging consideration of beams and abutments for prediction of
beam-end rotations due to creep and shrinkage.

The last item above is of particular concern for fully integral bridges. End rotations and
longitudinal displacements due to thermal variations are critical for both monolithic and
partially precast solutions.

The height of abutment walls is generally governed by geometrics and highway requirements,
while the wall thickness is either governed by passive pressure developed from thermal or
seismic loads. The relative stiffness per unit metre of the abutment and the deck influences
the moment restraint (Riches et al, 2005).

3. Static Design Considerations

3.1. Temperature loading of integral bridges

Differential thermal gradients through the beam depth cause significant internal forces and
associated stresses that are important for the deck design. Stresses resulting from temperature
variations are one of the key differences between an integral bridge and a jointed one.

Significant longitudinal displacements and end rotations can develop due to differential
temperature effects, with a typical longitudinal unrestrained displacement of ~29mm for a
60m long bridge. Where the foundations restrain this displacement, such as for integral
bridges, a considerable axial load will develop in the deck and be transferred into the
abutments.

Thermal variation along the depth of the bridge superstructure can also induce large rotations,
which leads to the development of significant secondary moments along the deck and at the
supports. Figure 1(a) presents an example of the deformations in a two-span integral bridge
due to differential thermal gradients in the superstructure.

The continuity from superstructure to substructure in integral bridges results in the transfer of
thermal deformations induced in the bridge deck into the abutment walls, piles and
surrounding soil. The complex nonlinear soil-structure interaction resulting from these
deformations is compounded by secondary stresses resulting from creep, shrinkage and other
effects. The magnitude and mode of deformation, the overall soil response and the overall
structural response are heavily influenced by the level of compaction in the granular fill
behind the abutment walls and adjacent to the piles along with the relative flexural stiffness
of the bridge deck, abutment wall, foundation piles, lateral pressure of soil behind the wall
and confining stress level in the soil (Shah et al 2008).

A simple analytical method has been developed which can be utilised by designers to
calculate thermally induced stresses in integral bridge superstructures. The proposed
analytical method comprises two main steps (Priestley and Buckle 1979):

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
1. Self-equilibrating stresses are calculated by considering the bridge as simply
supported.
2. The stresses caused by support fixity at the abutments and piers (called continuity
stresses) are calculated based on consideration of the implied boundary conditions and
added to the self-equilibrating stresses.

Thermal contraction generates minimal earth pressures at the abutments, and the gap formed
behind the abutments is negligible if the bridge is less than 100m in length.

Thermal expansion leads to significant earth pressures at the abutment wall, which can be
critical. The actual earth pressure is generally lower than the full passive pressure, and
should be calculated using a soil-spring model with realistic soil parameters. Lower and
upper bound analyses, using the shallowest and deepest soil layers respectively, should be
carried out to determine the sensitivity of the structure to the soil parameters used. Soil
effects are more significant for full-height abutments than piled foundations / abutments.

3.2. Creep and Shrinkage

Creep and shrinkage need to be considered together as they are dependent on similar
parameters. They are time-dependent effects that cause axial shortening and rotation at the
girder ends, inducing stresses in the continuous deck.

In traditional simply-supported bridges, structural/non-structural elements such as expansion

joints, roller supports and abutment bearings accommodate rotations and displacements
induced by creep and shrinkage and therefore reduce or minimise secondary stresses through
the additional degrees of freedom.

Due to the absence of aforementioned mechanisms to release structural stresses, secondary

effects such as creep, shrinkage and thermal gradient have a significant influence on the
behaviour of integral bridges. Concrete creep and shrinkage can reduce the effective pre-
stressing force in pre-stressed concrete bridge beams while also causing secondary loads at
integral abutments. Figure 1(b) shows an example moment diagram of a two-span integral
bridge due to concrete creep when subject to self-weight, illustrating the significant influence
of these secondary actions on integral bridges.

Many factors influence the effect of creep and shrinkage on the response of concrete
members in integral bridges. Factors influencing concrete shrinkage include water-cement
ratio, water content, workability, type and content of aggregate, and relative humidity. A
positive correlation has been observed between concrete shrinkage and water-cement ratio,
while a negative correlation has been observed for aggregate content, relative humidity and
aggregate-cement ratio.

Factors that affect concrete creep include sustained stress, concrete strength, type, size and
content of aggregate, water-cement ratio, slump, air content, loading age, relative humidity,
volume-surface ratio and temperature. A positive correlation has been observed between
creep in concrete and slump, temperature, and sustained stresses, while a negative correlation
has been observed for aggregate content, relative humidity, concrete strength, volume-to-
surface ratio, and loading age.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
4. Seismic Design Considerations

4.1. Analysis Method

Displacement based methods should be used for the seismic analysis and design of integral
bridges as these provide the most satisfactory procedures for allowing for the relative
stiffness of the piers and abutments and for including damping from soil-structure interaction
in the foundations and abutment walls.

Displacement-based seismic design methods for bridges are presented by Priestley et al

(2007) There are four stages in their simplified procedure:
1. Representation of the bridge as an equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF)
structure (Figure 2a).
2. Representation of the seismic response by the effective stiffness at the design
response displacement (Figure 2b).
3. Determination of relationship between displacement ductility demand and equivalent
viscous damping (Figure 2c).
4. Representation of seismicity by displacement spectra for different levels of equivalent
viscous damping (Figure 2d).

Step 2 enables an effective (secant) period of vibration to be computed from the effective
stiffness and mass of the SDOF structure. In Step 4 the effective period and the equivalent
damping from Step 3 is used to estimate the earthquake demand displacement. Iteration can
then be used to modify the structural details so that the design displacement in Step 2 is equal
to the response displacement.

The final design of all bridges with significant irregularity of structural form resulting from
high horizontal curvature and/or adjacent piers of significant difference in stiffness, should be
verified by modal response spectrum analysis using effective member stiffness at expected
maximum displacement demand together with appropriate damping levels, or non-linear
time-history analysis.

4.2. Abutment Stiffness

The stiffness of the soil against the abutment walls can be represented in the bridge model by
Winkler springs, which can also be used to model the soil surrounding any abutment piles
and under the footing where appropriate. The backwall springs can be determined using the
hyperbolic force-displacement relationship presented by Khalili-Tehrani et al (2010). This
relationship has been calibrated against earlier Log-Spiral Hyperbolic force-displacement
models (Shamsabadi et al 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007) which in turn were calibrated against
several small-scale and full-scale tests of abutment walls and pile caps. The form of the
hyperbolic force-displacement (HFD) equation is:

In the Khalili-Tehrani et al HFD equation the backfill parameters are defined in terms of the
soil internal friction, cohesion, unit weight and soil strain at 50% of the ultimate stress.
These parameters are readily determined by soil site investigation and testing. The soil strain

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
at 50% of ultimate stress can be estimated from typical values for different soils published by
Shamsabadi et al, (2007; 2009) and Khalili-Tehrani et al (2010).

A densely compacted coarse gravel should be used as abutment backfill when this type of
material is available. The length of the compacted zone of backfill should extend for at least
the height of the wall behind the back face of the abutment and vertically below the bottom of
the wall about 25% of the height of the wall.

It is important that the maximum likely forces on the abutment walls and piers be evaluated
using upper and lower bound soil strength parameters.

4.3. Abutment Damping

The damping associated with abutment dynamic cyclic loading can be estimated from the test
results of Rollins et al, (2010) who undertook full-scale tests on typical bridge pile caps.
They investigated a range of backfill conditions including; no backfill, loosely and densely
compacted clean sand, loosely and densely compacted fine gravel and loosely and densely
compacted coarse gravel and concluded that the response of pile caps and abutment structures
on piles subject to variable frequency loadings can be quantified using an average damping of
at least 15%.

4.4. Pier Stiffness and Damping

The stiffness of pier walls and columns should be investigated using moment-curvature
analyses. To construct the simplified response curve shown in Figure 2b it is necessary to
estimate the yield displacement. For a circular column the yield displacement, Δy can be
estimated from the yield curvature, ϕy using the following equations:

Similar equations are available for rectangular columns and walls (Priestley et al, 2007).

Foundation stiffness needs to be included in the overall pier stiffness calculation.

Deformations in laterally loaded piled foundations can be estimated using the elastic
continuum methods given by Pender, 1993. Damping expressions for ductile columns, pile
and footing foundations and column/piles are given in Priestly et al, (2007).

5. Geotechnical and Soil-Structure Interaction Design Aspects

Integral abutments should be designed to resist creep, shrinkage and thermal deformations of
the superstructure. Assessment of movement should consider temperature, creep and long-
term pre-stress shortening in determining potential movements of abutments. As
temperatures change daily and seasonally, the length of an integral bridge varies, pushing the
abutment against the approach fill and pulling it away. As a result the bridge superstructure,
the abutment, the approach fill, the foundation piles and the foundation soil are all subjected

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
to cyclic loading (Davies et al, 2014). Understanding their interactions is important for
effective design and satisfactory performance of integral bridges.

Geotechnical design of integral bridges and integral bridge abutments in New Zealand is
carried out generally in accordance with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Bridge
Manual, in which the geotechnical provisions are generally based on the provisions of BA
42/96 and BSI (2011). Figure 3 schematically shows the main elements of an integral bridge
system, which consist of bridge deck, girders, integral cast abutments and approach slabs.
The bridge movement is accommodated at the ends of the approach slabs, with sleeper slabs
often used to provide vertical support at this location.

5.1. Approach System

The approach system of an integral bridge consists of the backfill, the approach fill, an
approach (or settlement) slab and the foundation soil. Integral bridges are vulnerable to
differential settlement between the approach system and the bridge abutment, resulting in a
noticeable ‘bump’ near abutments.

These bumps may occur due to the following:

 significant earth pressure against the abutment wall due to cyclic bridge expansion
(i.e. cyclic compression and decompression of the backfill due to temperature cycles)
 settlement of in-situ soil under the approach embankment (when in-situ soils are soft
or compressible)
 settlement of abutment structural foundation
 consolidation of fill material (for poor fill materials and poorly compacted fills)
 high traffic loads
 poor drainage of fill
 loss of fill by erosion.

The intended function of an approach slab is to span the void that may develop beneath the
slab, provide a ramp for the differential settlement between the abutment and the
embankment, and to seal against water percolation and erosion of the backfill material. A
void between the backfill and the abutment is likely to develop for integral bridges due to
abutment movement. However when an approach slab is used, the ‘bump’ occurs at the end
of the approach slab.

The length of the zone of surface deformation extends from the abutment at a distance equal
to twice the height of the abutment, and therefore the length of the approach slabs should be
two to three times the height of the abutment.

The minimum recommended length of the approach slab for both integral and semi-integral
abutments is 6m. The approach slab should be positively attached to the backwall by
reinforcing bars anchored but creating a moment connection between the approach slab and
the deck slab is not recommended. The connection should be detailed to act as a pin with
tension steel transferred across the approach span into the backwall of integral and semi-
integral abutments. The detail should allow for some tolerance between the slab and the
corbel such that no damage occurs due to settlement.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
A final consideration for the approach slab is the development of compression forces.
Sufficient allowance for expansion of the superstructure must be accommodated in the
sleeper slab. Otherwise compression can be introduced into the slab by closing the expansion
gap and subsequently activating the passive pressure behind the sleeper slab, or from contact
with the adjacent roadway pavement. The latter can often be a major issue for spalling and
buckling of the adjacent pavement. A sleeper slab is placed at the roadway end of the
approach slab. The intent of this slab is to provide a relatively solid foundation for the far
end of the approach slab and to provide a location for limited expansion and contraction. A
typical detail was recommended by Wasserman and Walker (1996). A disadvantage of this
sleeper slab detail is the potential for pavement cracking in thin sections of pavement.

In a modified sleeper slab detail developed by the New York State Department of
Transportation (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-
info/drawings/bridge-detail-sheets/ie-integral-abutments), the stem of the sleeper slab extends
to the pavement surface and therefore a sharp change in pavement thickness is avoided and
potential for pavement cracking is substantially reduced.

5.2. Mitigation of Approach System Settlements

To ensure efficient performance of the approach system, the following issues should be
carefully considered and addressed during the design and construction of integral bridges:
 The cyclic nature of the abutment movement will loosen dense backfill and densify
the loose backfill within the close proximity of the abutment. In other words,
deformation induced by the abutment results in a density that is independent of the
initial density of the backfill material. Using very dense backfill will not help to
reduce settlement associated with moving abutments. Therefore approach slabs, or
continuous pavement patching are normally required to compensate for the inevitable
approach fill settlement.
 An efficient drainage system should be incorporated in the design. To avoid water
intrusion behind the abutment, the approach slab should be connected directly to the
abutment, and appropriate provisions should be made to provide for drainage of any
entrapped water.
 Detailed settlement analysis should be performed to estimate settlements of the bridge
and its approaches.
 High quality compaction specifications and procedures should be used.
 If large settlement due to soft or compressible in-situ soils is expected, soil
improvement such as replacement, preloading, vertical drains, and other stabilisation
techniques should be considered. Also, consideration should be given to construction
of the embankment of lightweight materials.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
5.3. Abutments supported on shallow footings

The following is recommended for abutments supported by shallow spread footings

(Azizinamini et al., 2013):
 The end movement of the bridge should be accommodated by sliding of the footing.
 There should be a safe distance from the footing to the face of the slope, and slope
protection measures put in place to prevent instability or washing out of soil beneath
the footing.
 Integral abutments should not be constructed on spread footings founded or keyed
into rock unless one end of the span is free to displace longitudinally. An alternative
is to use a semi-integral abutment. For footings founded on rock, a layer of granular
fill should be placed on top of a levelling layer or site concrete (immediately beneath
the footing) to facilitate sliding.
 The abutment wall should be designed for shear and moments resulting from both
expansion and contraction movements.
 The resistance to contraction should include friction on the bottom of the footing and
passive soil pressure from the soil in front of the abutment.
 For footings supported on a layer of granular soil for sliding on rock, geogrids and
geotextiles can be used to contain the granular soil.
 For footings founded on soft or compressible soil, mechanical stabilisation of the soil
below the footing may be required to avoid large total and differential settlements.
 Spread footings should be avoided for multi-span bridges if there is a risk of
differential settlement.

5.4. Abutments with MSE Walls

Full height abutments with MSE retaining walls may be considered in the design of integral
bridges. Loads due to the movement of the backwall and piles should be considered in the
design of the MSE walls.

If the piles are not isolated from the MSE wall (e.g. sleeved) and can apply load to the wall,
shear forces, bending moments in the piles and lateral soil pressures applied to the MSE
block should be considered in the design. The interaction between the MSE structure and the
piles can be analysed using pile load/deflection methods, e.g. p-y relationships for soil
springs (Lam and Martin 1986). The lateral pressures applied by the pile should be
considered as additional loading on the MSE wall.

The following design details are recommended for MSE abutments (Azizinamini et al 2013):
 Provide a clear horizontal distance of at least 0.5m between the MSE facing panels
and the piles.
 Sleeving of the piles should be considered to reduce loads applied to the MSE
structure and to reduce negative skin friction where applicable. This can be achieved
by providing a casing through the reinforced fill block. This needs to be balanced
against earthquake design requirements as this approach can result in large gaps being
required.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
5.5. Soil Pressures

The magnitude of soil pressure behind the abutment wall and the nonlinear distribution of this
pressure depend on wall displacement, soil type, depth, pile stiffness, and also direction of the
displacement. As the abutment wall moves toward the backfill, passive pressure is engaged,
and when it moves away from the backfill, active pressure and surcharge pressure may be
generated.

Full passive pressure can build up for relatively long bridge lengths. For shorter bridge
lengths, only part of the passive pressure is developed for expansion because thermal
expansion is limited. The load – displacement relationship for abutment walls is non-linear.
Clough & Duncan (1991) give coefficient of lateral earth pressure as a function of wall
displacement. Detailed recommendations on static soil pressures for integral bridges are
given in the recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to BS EN
1997:2004 (BSI, 2011).

5.6. Pile Foundations

Abutment piles of straight bridges should be oriented so that the strong axis of the piles is
perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the bridge. This orientation results in weak-axis
bending of the piles due to longitudinal movement of straight non-skew bridges. A procedure
has been developed to determine the optimum abutment pile orientation in the case of curved
girder integral bridges (Doust, 2011). Design of piles should consider strength, ductility,
fatigue, stability, pile group interaction, and minimum penetration length required to satisfy
the requirements for bearing capacity, uplift, scour, down-drag, liquefaction, lateral loads,
seismic forces and other extreme event loadings.

The ability of piles to accommodate lateral displacements from secondary loads due to
thermal expansion and contraction, creep, shrinkage and settlement is a significant factor in
determining the maximum length of integral bridges (Wiss, Janney & Elstner Associates Inc.,
2002). As piles deflect under abutment movement, the axial load capacity is reduced due to
the following:
 Pile-bending stresses from movement will be superimposed on axial stresses, thereby
reducing the axial load capacity. In some cases, steel piles of integral bridges are
subjected to superimposed movement stresses plus axial stresses that exceed the yield
stress of the steel.
 Movement of the pile could affect the behaviour of the soil, such as the ability of the
soil to carry vertical load through frictional resistance.
 An additional vertical force, or thermal load, will be introduced into the bridge-pile
system in order to maintain static equilibrium. A moment and shear force are
generated due to the eccentricity between the soil pressure resultant force and the
elevation of the superstructure.

5.7. Maintenance

It should be recognised that integral bridges require continuous, yet reduced, maintenance.
Depending on the circumstances, the maintenance may comprise asphalt overlays and
approach slab adjustment or replacement.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
6. Integral Bridge Performance

A number of integral and semi-integral bridges on State Highway 1 were subjected to very
strong ground shaking in the 14 November 2016, M 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake and moderate to
strong shaking in the earlier 16 August 2013, M 6.6 Lake Grassmere and the 21 July 2013, M
6.5 Cook Strait earthquakes. Except for the semi-integral Awatere River Bridge, they were
designed prior to 1955 and were only designed for a nominal 0.1 g earthquake acceleration.
The Awatere River bridge was constructed in 2007 and was designed in accordance with
modern earthquake design provisions (Bridge Manual, 2005).

All the integral bridges subjected to strong shaking in the Kaikoura earthquake sustained
minor to moderate damage but in view of the intensity of shaking and the limitations of the
earthquake design provisions used for the older bridges their performance was acceptable and
none were closed to traffic following the earthquake.

Because of its modern design the performance of the Awatere River bridge was relevant to
the present study of integral bridges and is discussed below. The bridge is located 1.5 km
north of Seddon (20 km south of Blenheim on the East Coast of the South Island) at 10 km
and 144 km respectively from the epicentres of the Lake Grassmere and Kaikoura
earthquakes. The maximum acceleration peaks recorded at Seddon had magnitudes of
approximately 0.75 g in both events; however, the duration of strong shaking in the Kaikoura
earthquake was significantly longer than in the Lake Grassmere event.

6.1. Awatere River Bridge

The bridge is 274 m in overall length with eight internal spans of 27.4 m and two end spans
of 27.2 m. (See Figure 4). It has a continuous superstructure formed with precast prestressed
concrete U-beams and deck slab units. Continuity is provided by cast insitu diaphragms at
the piers, and a 50 mm thick topping on the deck slab units.

The nine piers are reinforced concrete twin-column portal frames with 1.0 m diameter
columns founded on 1.2 m diameter drilled piles. The pier columns have a constant 5.5 m
height from the top of the pile to the underside of the capping beam. The pier capping beams
are monolithic with the cast in situ diaphragms that provide continuity between the
superstructure U-beams.

The abutments are semi-integral with a reinforced concrete seating beam and backwall of
total height 2.85 m supported on three 900 mm diameter bored piles. An annular gap of 50
mm was constructed over the top 3.5 m height of the piles to increase their flexibility under
lateral loads. The superstructure U-beams are seated on elastomeric bearing pads which allow
rotation relative to abutment structure. Longitudinal movement is restrained by eighteen 25
mm diameter tight linkage bars anchored behind the abutment backwall and into the soffit of
the U-beams. Transverse movement is restricted by concrete shear keys cast integral with the
abutment seating beams. Settlement slabs located at a depth of 850 mm below the pavement
rest on a 200 mm wide seating constructed on the soil side of the seating beam and backwall
(see Figure 5).

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
6.2. Earthquake Damage to Awatere River Bridge

Minor damage occurred to the bridge in all three main earthquake events. Following the
2013 Lake Grassmere earthquake the damaged areas were repaired. In the Kaikoura
earthquake similar damage occurred in areas where concrete spalling had occurred
previously.

In the 2013 earthquakes spalling occurred in the soffit of all three U-beams beneath the
anchorage point of the linkage bars at the North Abutment. There was no damage at this
location on the South Abutment. The lack of confinement of the concrete by vertical steel in
the soffit may have been a contributing factor. Following the Kaikoura Earthquake spalling
occurred at the location where the linkage bars passed through the back face of the transverse
diaphragm beam constructed between the U-beams. There was no spalling from the repaired
areas in the soffit of the U-beams.

The ends of the diaphragm beam between the U-beams at the North Abutment were spalled
by high pressures at the contact with the abutment shear keys located inside the abutment end
walls in the Lake Grassmere earthquake. Contact was expected at this location but the
spalling might have been reduced if the rubber bearing pads in the gap at the contact point
had been more effective and had not been dislodged. Spalling of the repaired diaphragm
beam at the North Abutment occurred in the Kaikoura earthquake.

Significant spalling and cracking at the tops of Piers D, E and F (see Figure 6) and minor
spalling and cracking in Piers H, I and J was observed following the Lake Grassmere
Earthquake. The spalls and cracking at Piers D, E and F indicated mainly transverse response.
On Piers H, I and J the cracking indicated stronger longitudinal response than transverse
movement.

Following the Kaikoura earthquake spalling damage was observed at the tops of both the
columns of all piers except the columns of Pier B (see Figure 6). Fine cracks and some
spalling was observed at the bottoms of the columns at Piers D and E.

Settlement of about 15 mm and 5 mm respectively in the approach fill at the contact with the
back wall of the North and South abutments occurred in the Lake Grassmere earthquake.
There was no significant increase in settlement of the approach fills in the Kaikoura
Earthquake. Settlement would have been reduced by the settlement slabs.

6.3. Aftershock Recording

Following the 14 November 2016 earthquake three tri-axial strong-motion accelerometers

were installed on the Awatere River bridge and two on the ground near the bridge. As at
June 2017 more than 25 aftershocks of magnitude M≥ 4 and located within 35 km of the
bridge have been recorded and provide useful information on the dynamic characteristics and
earthquake performance of the bridge.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
6.4. Prediction of Earthquake Performance

Static load push-over analyses using the Displacement-Based Design (DBD) theory described
above was used to predict the displacement and damage performance of the bridge in the
Kaikoura and Lake Grassmere earthquakes. Because of the 10-span length of the bridge a
single pier model and tributary mass assumption was used for the transverse direction loading
and gave a good approximation to the transverse response of the piers near the centre of the
bridge. In the longitudinal direction, a SDOF model of the complete bridge was used making
allowance for the stiffness of the abutment walls by using the HFD equation. The cracked
stiffness of the 1.0 m diameter columns was calculated by a moment-curvature analysis using
the Cumbia software (Montejo and Kowalsky, 2007). The steel cased 1.2 m diameter piles
were assumed to be uncracked. Soil surrounding the piles was modelled using both elastic
continuum theory (Pender, 1993) and Winkler springs based on Lam and Martin (1986).
Probable (expected) strength values were assumed for all the structural and soil materials.

Results from the longitudinal push-over analysis are shown in Figure 7. Separate curves
show the contribution to the total resisting force from the piers, the abutments and the
abutment passive resistance. For displacements greater than 50 mm the abutments provide
approximately 30% of the total resistance. Plastic hinges develop at the base of the piers at a
displacement of 80 mm and a corresponding superstructure response acceleration of 0.39 g
(based on a total bridge dynamic weight of 4,300 kN).

Displacement response spectra computed from the North-South acceleration components

recorded at Seddon in both the Lake Grassmere and Kaikoura Earthquakes for 12% damping
are shown in Figure 8. The bridge is orientated with its longitudinal axis within 5° of north-
south so the N00E components represent approximately the longitudinal input accelerations
for the bridge. Damping of 12% was estimated using formulae given in Priestley et al, 2007.
Superimposed on the displacement spectra plot is a bridge performance curve which has been
derived from the push-over results by calculating effective periods of vibration from the
overall secant stiffnesses at various displacement levels. Figure 8 indicates that in the
Kaikoura earthquake the longitudinal superstructure displacement would be expected to reach
approximately 100 mm at a period of vibration of approximately 1 second. This result is
consistent with the maximum recorded aftershock longitudinal response of 5 mm which had
at a period of vibration of 0.75 seconds and 8% damping estimated by analysis of both the
recorded bridge and input motions.

6.5. Summary of Performance

The satisfactory performance of the Awatere Bridge in two strong earthquake events which
subjected the bridge to design level loading demonstrated the advantages of integral
construction. Interaction at the abutments under longitudinal response significantly reduced
the shear forces in the piers and added significant damping reducing the overall response.

The bridge has also performed satisfactorily over a period of 10 years carrying a large
number of heavy vehicles without requiring any maintenance of the deck surface.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
7. Conclusions

This paper identified and discussed a number of issues relating to the design of integral and
semi-integral bridges, including:
 The structural form adopted at supports and in particular the connection details
between superstructure and substructure.
 The considerable actions imposed through secondary static effects, including creep,
shrinkage and temperature. Guidance is provided for formulations to be used during
design, and a detailed example and parametric analyses provided in the appendices.
 Preferred structural forms for integral bridges in moderate-to-high seismicity regions.
 Analysis methods for seismic design, with an emphasis on DBD. The modelling of
integral abutments and the soil-structure interface was of particular interest due to the
considerable influence of soil response on overall integral bridge response during
seismic motions.
 Geotechnical analysis and design for integral bridges, with guidance for approach
system form and abutment form. The effect of abutment form selection on horizontal
earth pressures and overall soil response was addressed with great detail.

A review of the performance of integral bridges found that integral bridges generally
performed well under normal service conditions. The performance of integral bridges
subjected to significant seismic actions was found to be positive overall, although the
increased significance of soil-structure interaction on the response of integral bridges was
noted to require further consideration during design.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge NZ Transport Agency for the opportunity to conduct the research
presented in this paper, and the peer reviewers Professor Ian Buckle and Dr Phillip Yen.

List of notation
ar is a height-independent parameter based on backfill properties
br is a height-independent parameter based on backfill properties
C1 is a coefficient dependent on column end fixity conditions
D is the column diameter
F(y) is the lateral force per unit width of backwall
Hbw is the backwall height
Hcol is the column clear height
Lsp is the strain penetration length into the pile or pier cap
y is the deflection per unit width of backwall
εy is the reinforcement yield strain

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
References
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd and Opus International Consultants Ltd (Beca and Opus) (2008) Standard
precast concrete bridge beams. NZ Transport Agency research report 364. 56 pp.
Clough, GW and JM Duncan (1991) Earth pressures. Pp234–235 in H-Y Fang (Ed) Foundation engineering
handbook. 2nd ed. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
Davies, L, J Bull and T Kucki (2014) Lightweight backfill materials in integral bridge construction. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Bridge Engineering 167, Issue BE1, 3-16.
Doust, SE (2011) Extending integral concepts to curved bridge systems. Civil Engineering Theses,
Dissertations, and Student Research paper 41.
Highways Agency (1996) BA42 – The design of integral bridges: design manual for roads and bridges. Vol
1.2.12. London: The Stationery Office.
Khalili-Tehrani, P, E Taciroglu and A Shamsabadi (2010) Backbone curves for passive lateral response of walls
with homogeneous backfills. Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction 149.
Lam, IP and GR Martin (1986) Seismic design of highway bridge foundations. Vol II Design procedures and
guidelines. FHWA report RD-86/102.
Montejo, LA and MJ Kowalsky (2007) Cumbia; set of codes for the analysis of reinforced concrete members.
Construction Facilities Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Technical Report No IS-07-01.
New Zealand Transport Agency (2013) Bridge manual. 3rd ed. SP/M/022.
Olson, SM, KP Holloway, JM Buenker, JH Long and JM LaFave (2013) Thermal behavior of IDOT integral
abutment bridges and proposed design modifications. Research report FHWA-ICT-12-022.
Priestley, MJN and IG Buckle (1979) Ambient thermal response of concrete bridges. Road Research Unit
bulletin 42. Wellington, 83pp.
Priestley MJN, GM Calvi and MJ Kowalsky (2007) Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS
Press. ISBN-10: 8861980007.
Riches, OJ, NA Carstairs and AEK Jones (2005) A simplified integral composite bridge connection.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Bridge Engineering 158, Issue BE2, 63-69.
Rollins, KM, TM Gerber and KH Kwon (2010) Lateral pile cap load tests with gravel backfill of limited width.
Utah Department of Transportation research report UT-10.17.
Shah, BR, D Peric and A Esmaeily (2008) Effects of ambient temperature changes on integral bridges. Kansas
Department of Transportation technical report K-TRAN: KSU-06-2.
Shamsabadi, A, L Yan and G Martin (2004) Three dimensional nonlinear seismic soil-foundation-structure
interaction analysis of a skewed bridge considering near fault effects. USC Digital Library.
Shamsabadi, A, M Ashour and G Norris (2005) Bridge abutment nonlinear force-displacement-capacity
prediction for seismic design. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131, no.2: 151–
161.
Shamsabadi, A and S Nordal (2006) Modeling passive earth pressures on bridge abutments for nonlinear
seismic soil-structure interaction using Plaxis. Plaxis Bulletin 20: 8–15.
Shamsabadi, A and M Kapuskar (2006) Practical nonlinear abutment model for seismic soil-structure interaction
analysis. Fourth International Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of Transportation Facilities, San
Francisco. 13–14 March 2006.
Shamsabadi, A, M Kapuskarand GR Martin,. (2006). Three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element soil-abutment
structure interaction model for skewed bridges. In Fifth National Seismic Conference on Bridges &
Highways (No. B15).
Shamsabadi, A, KM Rollins and M Kapuskar (2007) Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure interaction for
seismic performance-based design. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133, no.6:
707–720.
Shamsabadi, A, P Khalili-Tehrani, JP Stewart and E Taciroglu (2009) Validated simulation models for lateral
response of bridge abutments with typical backfills. Journal of Bridge Engineering 15, no.3: 302–311.
Wiss, Janney & Elstner Associates Inc (2002) Synthesis of technical information for jointless bridge
construction. Vermont Agency of Transportation, phase 1 report.
Wood, J, A Murashev, A Palermo, M Al-Ani, K Andisheh and D Goodall (2015) Criteria and guidance for the
design of integral bridges in New Zealand. New Zealand Transport Agency Research Report 577.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014
Figure captions
Figure 1. Schematic deflection of a two-span integral bridge due to (a) different temperature
gradient, and (b) creep due to self-weight.
Figure 2. Seismic analysis methodology.
Figure 3. Elements of an integral bridge system.
Figure 4. State Highway 1 Awatere River Bridge.
Figure 5. Awatere River Bridge abutment details (south end).
Figure 6. Spalling at the top of Pier E following the Lake Grassmere earthquake (left) and
following the Kaikoura earthquake (right).
Figure 7. Bridge longitudinal resistance curves from static push-over.
Figure 8. Displacement response spectra used to predict bridge performance.

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jbren.17.00014

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [28/05/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.