PERFORMANCE OF INTEGRAL BRIDGE WITH VARIOUS SPAN
LENGTHS
TUAN KHUSAIRRY BIN TUAN ABDUL MANAF
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering ( Civil – Structure )
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JANUARY 2014
iii
To my beloved wife, family, lecturers and friends
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I am so grateful towards ALLAH S.W.T that bestowed me the
strength and opportunity to finish my report. In the process of preparing and
completing this report, I was in contact either directly or indirectly with many
people, academicians and supplier. They have contributed towards my understanding
and thought.
In particular, I wish to express my greatest appreciation to my supervisor,
A.P. Dr. Arizu Bin Sulaiman for his encouragement, guidance, critics and
motivations.
At the same moment, I am grateful to all my family members for their
support and encouragement. My sincere appreciations also to my beloved wife,
Zalina Binti Mohamed Fauzi and not forgetting to all my children, Mohamad Arfan,
Mardhiatul Afzan, Maizatul Aqilah and Marissa Amanda.
I also indebted to Faculty of Civil Engineering, University Technology
Malaysia for giving me an opportunity to gain the experience, widen my knowledge,
and the facilities provided to me had simplified my work throughout the study
period.
I hope my findings in the study will expand the knowledge in this field and
contribute to all of us in future.
v
ABSTRACT
An integral bridge may be defined as having no expansion joints or sliding
bearings, the deck is continuous across the length of the bridge. Among the
advantages of this type of bridge is reducing the cost of maintenance and bringing
comfort to road users as there is no connection between the superstructure and
substructure. However, this type of bridge is quite different in comparison to the
conventional bridge in terms of the analysis and design. The aim of this study is to
examine the performance, with respect to the terms of reference of the PWD Bridge
Unit of integral bridges in excess of 60 m span length. This study is also intended to
investigate and make a comparison between integral bridges with various span
lengths in terms of the performance particularly for the reactions resulting from the
applied load. A series of integral bridges with different span configurations and
lengths have been designed and analyzed using STAAD Pro. The results show that
when the span increases, the values of hogging moments at connection between
beam and pier increase significantly. From the analysis and design that have been
made, it can be concluded that for integral bridges with lengths more than 70 m (for
example, configuration of bridge of 20m + 40m + 20m), the bridge can be designed
as an integral bridge but the thickness of the deck slab should be increased in order to
sustain the resulting negative hogging moment on the connections between the
beams and piers. However, the cost incurred due to increasing the thickness of the
deck slab should be calculated in order to assess whether a bridge should designed as
an integral bridge or conventional bridge.
vi
ABSTRAK
Jambatan integral boleh ditakrifkan sebagai tidak mempunyai sendi
pengembangan atau gelongsor galas, yang mana pada bahagian papaknya adalah
bersambung terus dari bahagian rentang kepada bahagian sub-struktur. Antara
kelebihan jambatan jenis ini adalah dapat mengurangkan kos penyelenggaraan dan
memberi keselesaan kepada pengguna jalan raya kerana tiada penyambungan antara
sub-struktur dan struktur atas. Walaubagaimanapun, jambatan jenis ini adalah amat
berbeza berbanding dengan jambatan konvensional dari segi analisis dan reka
bentuk. Tujuan kajian adalah untuk mengkaji prestasi jambatan dengan merujuk
kepada terma rujukan Bahagian Jambatan JKR Malaysia, bagi mengkaji jambatan
integral yang melebihi 60 m panjang rentang. Kajian ini juga bertujuan untuk
menyiasat dan membuat perbandingan di antara jambatan integral dengan pelbagai
panjang rentang dari segi prestasi terutamanya bagi tindak balas yang terhasil
daripada beban kenaan. Bagi tujuan tersebut, beberapa model jambatan integral
dengan panjang dan konfigurasi rentang yang berbeza telah direka bentuk dan
dianalisis dengan menggunakan perisian STAAD Pro. Keputusan yang diperolehi
menunjukkan bahawa apabila span bertambah, nilai-nilai momen negatif pada
sambungan antara rasuk dan tiang sambut meningkat dengan ketara. Daripada
analisis dan reka bentuk yang telah dibuat, dapat dibuat kesimpulan bahawa untuk
jambatan integral dengan panjang lebih daripada 70 m (sebagai contoh, konfigurasi
jambatan 20m + 40m + 20m ), ianya boleh direka bentuk sebagai jambatan integral
tetapi ketebalan papak perlu ditambah bagi membolehkannya mengambil momen
negatif yang terhasil pada sambungan antara rasuk dan tiang sambut.
Walaubagaimanapun, perbandingan kos yang terhasil disebabkan oleh pertambahan
ketebalan papak perlu dibuat bagi menilai samada sesuatu jambatan itu perlu direka
bentuk sebagai jambatan integral atau jambatan konvensional.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATIONS iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES xix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Aim and Objectives 3
1.3 Problem Statement 4
1.4 The Scope of the Study 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Design Bridge System 7
2.2.1 Simply Supported/Semi Integral Bridge 9
2.2.2 Integral Bridge 10
viii
2.3 Sequence of Construction for Integral Bridge 12
2.4 Design Issues 14
2.4.1 Continuity and Abutment Fixity 14
2.4.2 Abutment Piles 15
2.4.3 Skew 16
2.5 Design Principle and Approach 17
2.5.1 Limit State Design 17
2.5.2 Ultimate Limit State 18
2.5.3 Serviceability Limit State 19
2.5.4 Design Life 19
2.6 Bridge Loading 20
2.6.1 Dead and Superimposed Dead Loading 22
2.6.2 Imposed Traffic loading 23
2.6.3 Imposed Loading Due to Road Traffic 24
2.6.4 Thermal Loading 25
2.7 Load Combinations (Load Cases) 25
2.7.1 Load Combinations Based to the BD37/01 27
3 METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Problem Identification 33
3.3 Structural Model and Construction Stages 33
3.3.1 Construction Sequence 35
3.4 Integral Bridge Modeling 38
3.5 Perform Analysis 41
3.6 Comparison result between four Integral Bridge Models
With Various Span Lengths and Design Verification 41
3.7 Expected Findings 41
4 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 43
4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Bridge Modeling 43
4.2.1 Geometry Definition 46
4.2.2 “General” Definition 47
4.2.3 Section Properties of the Elements 48
ix
4.2.4 Support General 51
4.2.5 Load Consideration 54
4.2.6 Lateral Earth Pressure 60
4.3 Perform Analysis 63
4.3.1 Comparison Result between Four Integral
Bridge Models with Various Span Lengths 67
4.4 Integral Bridge Design 69
4.5 Adaptation of Real Integral Bridge Design 79
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 82
5.1 Introduction 82
5.2 Analysis of Bridge Models 83
5.2.1 Analysis of Bridge Models using STAAD Pro 83
5.3 Result Obtained From the Analysis 85
5.3.1 Result of Bridge Model no. 1 85
5.3.2 Result of Bridge Model no. 2 90
5.3.3 Result of Bridge Model no. 3 96
5.3.4 Result of Bridge Model no. 4 102
5.4 Discussion 108
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 111
5.1 Conclusion 111
5.2 Recommendation 113
REFERENCES 114
APPENDICES 116
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
5.1 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 1 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 1
85
5.2 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 2 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 1
86
5.3 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at mid span – Bridge model no. 1
86
5.4 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 1 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 2
90
5.5 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 2 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 2
90
5.6
The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 3 (Pier) – Bridge model no. 2
91
5.7
The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at mid span – Bridge model no. 2
91
5.8 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 1 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 3
96
xi
5.9 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 2 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 3
96
5.10
The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 3 (Pier) – Bridge model no. 3
97
5.11
The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at mid span – Bridge model no. 3
97
5.12 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 1 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 4
102
5.13 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 2 (Abutment) – Bridge model no. 4
102
5.14
The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at point 3 (Pier) – Bridge model no. 3
103
5.15 The values of bending moment, shear force and displacement
at mid span – Bridge model no. 3
103
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1(a) Multi Span Bridge 8
2.1(b) Single Span Bridge 8
2.2 Single Span Integral Bridge 8
2.3 Semi Integral Abutment 10
2.4 Integral Bridge 11
2.5 Sequence of Construction for Integral Bridge 13
2.6 Connection between superstructure and substructure for
integral bridge
15
3.1 Flow Chart of the Research Methodology 32
3.2(a) Cross-section of elevation view of integral bridge 34
3.2(b) Typical Cross-section of abutment and pier 34
3.3 First Construction Stage 36
3.4 Second Construction Stage 37
3.5 Third Construction Stage 37
xiii
3.6 Fourth Construction Stage 38
3.7 Example of integral bridge modeling system 40
4.1(a) Bridge model no. 1 44
4.1(b) Bridge model no. 2 45
4.1(c) Bridge model no. 3 45
4.1(d) Bridge model no. 4 46
4.2 Integral bridge model with lines geometry 47
4.3 General icon in STAAD Pro 48
4.4(a) PTT Beam Diagram 49
4.4(b) The values of properties for section of PTT Beam 49
4.5 The values of properties for section of PTT Beam will to
assigned to the beam element
50
4.6(a) Example section properties for abutment element 50
4.6(b) Example section properties for pile element 51
4.7 Structural support assigned for pinned 53
4.8 Structural support assigned based to spring values 53
4.9 Structure model view after assigned spring stiffness 54
4.10 Example assigned dead load for self-weight of beam 56
4.11 Create Surface of Deck 57
4.12 Define roadway (carriageway width) 58
xiv
4.13 Run live load analysis using STAAD Beava version 58
4.14 Example assigned live load generated by Beava version 59
4.15 Example of Beava live load transferred to STAAD Pro 59
4.16(a) Horizontal force (earth pressure) on abutment 61
4.16(b) Assigned horizontal force to the abutment using STAAD
Pro
62
4.17 Calculation using the Bowles method by Excel sheet 63
4.18(a) Bending moment of the structure 66
4.18(b) Shear force of the structure 66
4.18(c) Displacement of the integral bridge structure 67
4.19(a) Single span 40 m 68
4.19(b) Multiple spans 60m 68
4.19(c) Multiple spans 70m 68
4.19(d) Multiple spans 80m 69
4.20 Arrangement of Reinforcement at Abutment ( single span
40 meter)
72
4.21 Arrangement of Reinforcement at Abutment ( multiple
spans 70 meter)
75
4.22 Arrangement of Reinforcement at Abutment ( multiple
spans 80 meter)
78
4.23 Layout of the bridge 79
4.24 Isometric view 80
4.25 Result moment 80
xv
4.23 Detail drawings for abutment of Sg. Penggorak, Pahang 81
5.1(i) Bending moment resulting from live load and other loads
except dead load
84
5.1(ii) Shear force resulting from live load and other loads
including dead load
84
5.1(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 1
87
5.1(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 1
87
5.2(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 2
88
5.2(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 2
88
5.3(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at mid span
89
5.3(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at mid span
89
5.4(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 1
92
5.4(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 1
92
5.5(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 2
93
5.5(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 2
93
5.6(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 3
94
5.6(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 3
94
5.7(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at mid span
95
5.7(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at mid span
95
5.8(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 1
98
5.8(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 1
98
xvi
5.9(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 2
99
5.9(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 2
99
5.10(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 3
100
5.10(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 3
100
5.11(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at mid span
101
5.11(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at mid span
101
5.12(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 1
104
5.12(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 1
104
5.13(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 2
105
5.13(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 2
105
5.14(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at point 3
106
5.14(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at point 3
106
5.15(a) Graph of bending moment vs load combinations
at mid span
107
5.15(b) Graph of shear force vs load combinations
at mid span
107
5.16 Arrangement of reinforcement on pier 109
xvii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
STAAD Pro - Structure software for analysis
S. Pro Beava - Software for live load analysis
WIM - Weight in motion
HA(UDL) - Distributed live load
HA(KEL) - Knife edge load
HB - Special vehicle live load
SW - Self-weight
DL - Dead load
Pa - Earth pressure
Ap.slab - Approach slab
Tr - Traction load
STC - Shrinkage, temperature and creep
TEM - Uniform temperature load
Ga - Self-weight of beam
Gc - Self-weight of slab
So - Earth pressure at rest
Gfin - Finishes load
Ks - Stiffness of soil (K-value)
Ixx - Second moment area about x axis
Iyy - Second moment area about y axis
Acsbeam - Cross-section area of beam
Acsdeckslab - Cross-section area of deckslab
γconcrete - Density of concrete
γ - Density of soil
Ø - Angle of friction
xviii
fcu - Strength of concrete
fy - Strength of reinforcement
Mmax - Maximum bending moment
Vmax - Maximum shear force
Z - Lever arm
d - Effective depth
As - Area of reinforcement required
As prov - Area of reinforcement provided
Asv - Area of reinforcement link
fyv - Strength of link reinforcement
Sv - centre to centre of link spacing
xix
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A - D Example of calculation for soil stiffness 117 - 120
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Integral Bridge is designed without any expansion joints in the bridge deck.
They are generally designed with the stiffness and flexibilities spread throughout the
structure/soil system so that all supports to accommodate all type of loads (primary
and secondary loads). They are single or multiple span bridges having their
superstructure cast integrally with their substructure. Generally these bridges include
capped pile stub abutments and piers. In other words, these types of bridge are
constructed without any movement joints between spans and abutments/piers.
One of the most important aspects in the design is that it can affect the life
and maintenance cost structure with the reduction or elimination of road expansion
joints and bearings. Unfortunately, this is too often overlooked or avoided. Joints
and bearings are expensive to buy, install, maintain and repair and more costly to
replace. The most frequently encountered corrosion problem involves leaking
expansion joints and seal that permit salt-laden run-off water from roadway surface
2
to attack the girder ends, bearings and supporting reinforced concrete substructures.
Elastomeric glands get filled with dirt, rocks and trash and ultimately fail to
function.
In the UK, the highways Agency Department Standard, BD57/01 and TOR
Bridge Unit CKASJ JKR Malaysia “Design for Durability” requires designers to
consider designing all bridges with length up to 60 meter and skew angles of less
than 30 degrees as integral bridges. However, the basis of this requirement is yet to
be justified.
The principal advantages of integral bridge include the following:
(i) Lower construction costs and future maintenance costs. In
conventional bridges much of the cost of maintenance is related to
repair of damage at joints.
(ii) Fewer piles are required for foundation support. No battered piled
piles are needed.
(iii) Construction is simple and rapid. The integral bridge act as a whole
unit.
(iv) Reduced removal of existing elements. Integral abutment and pier
bridges can be built around the existing foundation without requiring
the complete removal of existing substructure.
(v) The smooth, uninterrupted deck of the integral bridge is aesthetically
pleasing and it improves vehicular riding quality.
3
(vi) Design efficiencies are achieved in substructure design. Longitudinal
and transverse loads acting upon the superstructure may be
distributed over more number of supports.
1.2 Aim and Objectives
The aim of the study is basically focus on the integral bridges capability with
respect to the performance of the integral bridge is comparison to conventional
simply supported bridges after the application of primary and secondary loads.
Subsequently, the objectives of the study are as follows:
(i) To obtain the length limit for integral bridges in an analytical way,
where the limit factors include capacity of abutments and piers due to
primary and secondary loads.
(ii) To perform structural study on multiple spans integral bridge,
through analysis to further understand the performance these types of
bridges.
(iii) To perform analysis modeling using STAAD Pro software to
determine the bending moment, shear forces, displacement for the
whole bridge system.
(iv) To compare the results of integral bridges model with the various
length.
4
1.3 Problem Statement
In general, integral bridges are designed for a range of less than 60 meters in
length of span. If referred to the terms of reference from Bridge Unit, CKASJ JKR
Malaysia, length of integral bridges not more than 60 meters and not more than 30
degrees of skew. This limit must be proved by theoretical studies of the behavior of
an integral bridge.
This research is to find out and make a comparison of integral bridges with
various span lengths in terms of the performance particularly for the reactions
resulting (bending moments and shear forces) from the applied load. This study will
also look at what is essentially an integral bridges should be designed not exceed 60
meters, and what happens if integral bridges designed beyond the limit particularly
for the multiple spans bridge.
Generally, the overall problems of this study are:
(i) There is no solid basis for the limits of integral bridges.
(ii) The behavior of an integral bridge that exceeds the limit, particularly
for the more than 60 meters long and what are the things to be
considered in terms of how to design is limited.
(iii) There is no exact concept of loading that is correct for the analysis of
integral bridges.
5
1.4 The scope of the study
One of the scopes of the study is to check the structural capacity of the
design concept for beams, piers, abutments and foundation systems and make a
comparison of the design for integral bridge and conventional type. This study is
also includes the combination of load cases acting on the bridge and evaluate the
behavior of the bridge and make a comparison between single span and multiple
span.
In addition, studies to assess the key parameters to be considered in the
analysis and design of integral bridges and evaluate the ability of integral bridge
structure based on the theory by using the software to modeling the structure system.
Results of the analysis will be considered in this study are such as bending moments
and shear forces on the connection between the beam and abutment/pier and also the
reaction force at the pile system due to soil interaction.
114
REFERENCES
1. O’Brien E.J., Keogh D.L. and Lehane B.M. (1999), Bridge Deck Analysis.
London, E & FN Spon.
2. Connal J. (2002) Integral Abutment Bridges – Australian and US Practice,
Design & Construction of Integral Bridges.
3. Dr. Abd. Aziz Arshad (2001), Course on: Bridge Design to JKR
Specification, Civil & Structure Engineering Technical Division (IEM).
4. Barker R.M. and Puckett J.A. (1997), Design of Highway Bridges, Based On
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.
5. Manual Design For Road and Bridge, BA42/96 (1996), Integral Bridge
Design, Department of Highway, UK.
6. Terms of Reference for Bridges and Viaducts Structures (Conventional)
(2012), Bridge Unit, CKASJ, JKR Malaysia.)
7. Chatterjee S. (2003), Modern Steel Bridges. UK Blackwell Science LTD.
8. Vasant C. Mistry (2004), Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington DC, USA.
9. Sergei Terzaghi and Gillian Sisk (2009), Integral Bridge Design –
Derivation of the spring constant for modelling soil structure interaction.
10. Jaromir Krizek (2011), Integral Bridges Soil-Structure Interaction, Czech
Rep.
11. Unit Jambatan (1984), Buku Panduan Rekabentuk Jambatan, JKR Malaysia.
115
12. Azlan Abd. Rahman (2013), Lecture Notes: Bridge Engineering, Integral
Bridge Design, UTM.