SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS OF

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
By Murat Dicleli1

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a computer-aided approach for the design of integral-abutment bridges. An
analysis procedure and a simplified structure model are proposed for the design of integral-abutment bridges
considering their actual behavior and load distribution among their various components. A computer program,
for the analysis of integral-abutment bridges, has been developed using the proposed analysis procedure and
structure model. The program is capable of analyzing an integral-abutment bridge for each construction stage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and carrying the effects of applied loads on the structure members from a previous construction stage to the
next. The proposed analysis methods and structure models are compared with the conventional analysis method
and structure model currently used by many structural engineers for the design of integral-abutment bridges.
The benefits of using the proposed analysis method and simplified structure model for the design of integral-
abutment bridges are discussed. It was concluded that it may be possible to obtain more sound and economical
designs for integral-abutment bridges using the proposed analysis method and structure model.

INTRODUCTION piers are usually idealized as simple roller supports in most

In the past, the construction of rigid-frame bridges, which
could be categorized as a class of integral-abutment bridges,
was accompanied by the construction of multiple-span bridges
with discontinuous decks or movable joints. Expansion or
movable joints on bridges have provided considerable main-
tenance problems for transportation agencies (Burke 1988,
1990a; Wolde et al. 1988a,b; Steiger 1993). Consequently,
bridge engineers have been trying to design bridges as jointless
structures to minimize the cost of maintenance. Recently, in
many parts of North America, the overall economy of contin-
uous construction is made applicable to bridges with multiple
spans (Wolde et al. 1988a,b; Burke 1990a,b, 1994; Soltani and
Kukreti 1992). Multiple-span bridges with short abutments
that are cast integral with the deck and supported on a single
row of flexible piles are now considered as an alternative to
traditional multiple-span bridges with separate heavy abut-
ments.
Although arch bridges, rigid-frame bridges, and culverts can
be classified as integral-abutment bridges, the types of inte-
gral-abutment bridges considered in this paper, as shown in
Fig. 1, are the ones that resemble the conventional jointed
bridges. In these types of bridges, the road surfaces are con-
tinuous from one approach embankment to the other, and the
abutments are cast integral with the deck. They differ from
rigid-frame bridges in the manner of distribution of stresses
due to temperature change, prestressing, creep, shrinkage, and
restraints provided by abutment foundation and backfill. The
effect of forces parallel to the longitudinal direction of the
bridge is minimized basically by designing the abutments and
their foundations less resistant to longitudinal movements of
the structure.
Conventionally, for the design of the bridge deck, integral-
abutment bridges are idealized as a continuous beam with sim-
ply supported ends (Hambly and Nicholson 1990; Hayward
1992; Soltani and Kukreti 1992; Burke 1993a,b; Husain and
Bagnariol 1996). They are modeled as a continuous frame only
for the design of deck-abutment joints. But, in the model, the
cases. The bridge is designed considering the effect of the
loads at the final stage assuming a completed structure. The
effect of seismic forces is usually neglected assuming that this
type of structures are not prone to such forces because of their
continuity (Burke 1993a,b). A more detailed description of this
conventional design procedure, which is used by many bridge
engineers in North America and Europe, will be reported in
the upcoming sections.
The above approach uses simple structure models for the
analysis of integral-abutment bridges. Hence, its application is
easier and less time consuming when conducted manually.
Consequently, it has been exercised by many structural engi-
neers to design integral-abutment bridges for the effects of
gravitational loads. However, the procedure contains unnec-
essary assumptions, and the structure model fails to reflect the
actual behavior of the bridge and the effects of several loading
conditions. Considering these limitations, an analysis proce-
dure and a structure model that realistically represent the ac-
tual behavior of integral-abutment bridges and load distribu-
tion among their various components are proposed. The
proposed analysis method and structure model are imple-
mented in a computer program developed for the analysis of
integral-abutment bridges.
In the subsequent sections, the types of integral-abutment
bridges studied in this paper are first described. Then, the cur-
rently used conventional analysis methods and structure mod-
els are defined concisely. The behavior of and design consid-
erations for integral-abutment bridges are also briefly
discussed. Next, the proposed analysis method is introduced.
Following this, a structure model for the analysis of integral-
abutment bridges under gravity loading is introduced. Then,

1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Constr., Bradley Univ., 1501 W.
Bradley Ave., Peoria, IL 61625. E-mail: mdicleli@usa.net
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2001. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on July 17, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, August, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN
1084-0702/00/0003-0240–0248/$8.00 ⫹ $$.50 per page. Paper No.
18806. FIG. 1. Typical Two-Span Integral-Abutment Bridge

240 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.

 the developed computer program for the analysis of integral-
abutment bridges is defined. Subsequently, the analysis results
obtained from the proposed analysis procedure are compared
with those obtained from the conventional analysis method.
Finally, the benefits of using the proposed analysis procedure
and structure model for the design of integral-abutment
bridges are discussed in the conclusions.

DEFINITION OF INTEGRAL-ABUTMENT BRIDGE

TYPES CONSIDERED
The integral-abutment bridges considered in this paper are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

assumed to have a slab-on-steel or prestressed-concrete girder

deck. In such bridges, only a single row of piles is used to
provide vertical support to abutments and modest lateral re-
sistance to longitudinal forces. The abutments are built shorter
to reduce the restraint provided by the backfill soil to the lon-
gitudinal movement of the bridge. The connection between the
bridge deck and the abutment can be rigid or semirigid de-
pending on the detailing of joint reinforcement. A typical two-
span integral-abutment bridge is illustrated in Fig. 1.
For multiple-span integral-abutment bridges, the columns
FIG. 2. Conventional Structure Model for Deck Design
may be reinforced concrete (RC) or steel. The RC columns
may be either free standing or rigidly connected to a cap-beam
supporting the superstructure. The steel columns may be either
rapidly connected to a steel superstructure or separated by
movable joints from the superstructure. The connections of the
columns to the foundations may have rigidity ranging between
zero (pin) and infinite (fixed). Most RC columns are designed
to develop full continuity with the foundation at their bases.
Therefore, the fixed support condition may be suitable for such
cases. However, the connection of steel columns to the RC
footing is usually designed as a pin to prevent any potential
damage to the foundation due to penetration of plastic hinging
at the column base.

CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE AND STRUCTURE

MODELING TECHNIQUES
Current design practice recommends that an integral-abut-
ment bridge is modeled as a continuous beam with simply
supported ends for gravity load analysis. A separate frame
model is only considered if the design of deck-abutment con-
tinuity connection is specifically required (Hambly and Nich-
olson 1990; Burke 1993a,b; Husain and Bagnariol 1996).
A typical three-span, slab-on-steel-girder, integral-abutment
bridge and its structure model are shown in Fig. 2. The struc-
ture model is used for the design of the bridge deck only. It
is composed of only horizontal beam elements. Full composite
action between the slab and the girders is assumed for the
beam elements. As shown in Fig. 2, the piers and abutments
in the actual structure are replaced with simple supports in the
model. Thus, the continuity of the structure at the deck-pier
and deck-abutment joints is totally neglected for the deck de-
sign. The structure is analyzed only for the final stage where
the bridge is assumed to be completed. The weight of the
concrete slab, girders, diaphragm beams, and superimposed
dead load and live load are considered in the analysis of the
structure.
The structure model shown in Fig. 3 is used to analyze the
same three-span integral-abutment bridge for the design of
deck-abutment joints assuming full composite action between
the slab, girders, and the abutments only. The deck-pier joints
are modeled as simple roller supports (Burke 1993a,b; Husain
and Bagnariol 1996). The weight of the concrete slab, girders,
diaphragm beams, superimposed dead loads, live load, earth
pressure, and effect of temperature variation are considered in
the analysis of the structure. However, the correlation between
the temperature variation and the magnitude of earth pressure
FIG. 3. Conventional Structure Model for Deck-Abutment
Joint Design
is neglected. The deck-abutment joints are designed assuming
a maximum passive earth pressure condition at the abutments.
In the current design practice, the detailing of abutment-
deck continuity connections are standardized for various range
of applications (Hamley 1992). Therefore, in most cases, the
structure model shown in Fig. 3 is not considered in the anal-
ysis. The bridge is modeled as a simply supported continuous
beam, shown in Fig. 2, and the full design is completed based
on that model. Nevertheless, the detailing may vary depending
on the type of loads applied to the structure. For example,
seismic design provisions for RC rigid-frame structures usu-
ally require joint details that must have some level of rotational
and/or translational ductility for energy dissipation purposes
(Federal 1987). Consequently, the standard reinforcement de-
tails for abutment-deck continuity connections may not be ap-
plicable if the structure is built in an area with high risk of
seismic activity. The joint details may also vary as a function
of the structure geometry.
In most cases, for the design of piers supporting the integral-
abutment bridge decks, the unbalanced horizontal soil pressure
forces resulting from unsymmetrical abutment configurations
are assumed to be transferred directly to the approach em-
bankments with no effect on piers. Accordingly, the piers are
designed for vertical reaction loads transferred from the su-
perstructure and for lateral loads directly applied on the piers.
Obviously, this design approach is limited to some simple
cases where the structure is fully symmetrical and the soil
pressures at both sides of the bridge are in equilibrium.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000 / 241

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.

 The effect of axial force in the deck, resulting from earth
pressure loads at both sides of the structure, is also neglected
in the current design approach. This axial force may cause
extra shortening of the prestress concrete girders due to elastic
deformation and creep, which may lead to a reduction in the
effective prestressing force in the girders.
The current design practice allows for the design of pile-
abutment connection joints to develop full continuity. Conse-
quently, bending moments at pile ends are produced due to
temperature variations and vehicular traffic. These bending
moments could be high enough to initiate plastic yielding of
steel piles (Emanual et al. 1973; Loveall 1985; Burke 1988;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be wet. Therefore, the steel girders alone resist the applied
loads. The loads due to the wet concrete slab, diaphragms, and
self-weight of the steel girders are considered in this stage. In
the second stage, the steel girders are assumed to be composite
with the concrete slab. However, the modulus of elasticity of
the concrete slab is assumed as one-third of its actual final
value to consider the effect of creep due to superimposed dead
loads (Ministry 1991). In addition to the loads applied in the
first stage, asphalt load and superimposed dead loads due to
sidewalks, curbs, barrier walls, and median are considered in
this stage. In the final stage, the bridge is assumed to be in
service. Full composite action is assumed between the slab,

Abendroth et al. 1989; Abendroth and Greimann 1989; Girton girders, and abutments. The effects of temperature variation,
et al. 1991). It may be speculated that the repetitive variation soil pressure, and live load are considered in this final stage.
of temperature and the effect of live load may cause low cycle
fatigue in the piles (Burke 1988). A hinge connection detail Soil-Structure Interaction
between the piles and the abutment may prevent such a po-
tentially destructive problem. The earth pressure coefficient is a function of the displace-
ment or rotation of the earth retaining structure. An integral-
PROPOSED ANALYSIS METHOD abutment bridge will experience elongation and contraction
due to temperature variations during its service life. Thus, the
Construction Stages and Loads earth pressure at the abutments should be considered in cor-
relation with temperature variation. A very small displacement
The construction of an integral-abutment bridge is done in
of the bridge away from the backfill soil can cause the devel-
stages. Therefore, it must be analyzed for each construction
opment of active earth pressure conditions (Barker et al. 1991;
stage to ensure that the structure has adequate capacity to sus-
Ministry 1991). Therefore, when the bridge contracts due to a
tain the applied loads particular to the stage under considera-
decrease in temperature, active earth pressure will be devel-
tion.
oped behind the abutment. At rest earth pressure behind the
Two stages are considered for the design of slab-on-pre-
abutment is assumed when there is no thermal movement.
stressed-concrete-girder integral-abutment bridges. The loads
When the bridge elongates due to an increase in temperature,
applied at each stage are listed in Table 1. In the first stage
the intensity of the earth pressure behind the abutment depends
the slab concrete is assumed to be wet. Accordingly, the pre-
on the magnitude of the bridge displacement toward the back-
stressed-concrete girders alone resist the applied loads. The
fill soil. The actual earth pressure coefficient K may change
structure is analyzed for the effects of prestressing force, dead
between at rest Ko and passive Kp earth pressure coefficients
weight of the girders, weight of wet concrete slab, and weight
depending on the amount of displacement. Past researchers
of the diaphragms. In the second stage the bridge is assumed
obtained the variation of earth pressure coefficient as a func-
to be in service. Full composite action is considered between
tion of structure displacement from experimental data and fi-
the slab, girders, and abutments. The effects of superimposed
nite-element analyses (Barker et al. 1991; Clough and Duncan
dead loads, asphalt weight, temperature variation, soil pres-
1991). For practical purposes, this variation is assumed to be
sure, and live load are considered in this stage.
linear, as shown in Fig. 4. This linear relationship is expressed
Three stages are considered for the design of slab-on-steel-
as
girder integral-abutment bridges. The loads applied at each
stage are listed in Table 2. In the first stage, the naked steel K = Ko ⫹ ␸d ⱕ Kp (1)
girders are assumed to be fully assembled and supported on
the abutments and piers, but the slab concrete is assumed to where d = displacement of the integral-abutment bridge toward
the backfill soil; and ␸ = slope of the earth pressure variation
TABLE 1. Summary of Stage Loading for Slab-on-Pre- depicted in Fig. 4. The value of ␸ varies as a function of the
stressed-Concrete-Girder Deck Integral-Abutment Bridges backfill soil type. Typical values of ␸ for various soil types
are provided elsewhere (Barker et al. 1991).
Stage Stage name Load Load description
The soil-structure interaction as a result of positive temper-
(1) (2) (3) (4)
ature variation is illustrated in Fig. 5, which consists of three
1 Simply supported beams 1 Self-weight of girder separate sketches. The sketch at the top illustrates the structure
2 Pretensioning
3 Weight of wet concrete slab, dia-
model used to formulate the effect of positive temperature var-
phragms, and abutment iation on the magnitude of earth pressure coefficient. The
2 Composite structure 4 Superimposed dead load (e.g., structure model is obtained by conservatively neglecting the
in sidewalks, curbs, medians)
5 Asphalt weight
6 Long-term prestress losses
7 Highway live loading and side-
walk load, or pedestrian loads
at fatigue limit state
8 As load 7 but at serviceability
limit state
9 As load 7 but at ULS
10 Thermal load due to longitudi-
nal expansion
11 Thermal load due to longitudi-
nal contraction
12 Passive earth pressure
13 At rest earth pressure
14 Active earth pressure FIG. 4. Variation of Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient as
Function of Structure Displacement toward Backfill

242 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.

 where ␣ = coefficient of thermal expansion for the deck ma-
terial; and ␦T = differential temperature variation.
To satisfy the equilibrium of forces in the longitudinal di-
rection of the bridge, the axial force Fd in the deck must be
equal to the earth pressure force Fs. By first substituting (6)
into (5) and then setting (4) equal to (5) and simplifying, the
final displacement of the bridge deck at abutment location,
considering the combined effects of positive temperature var-
iation and the earth pressure force, is obtained as
2␣␦TEg(Ag ⫹ nAs) ⫺ h2we␥s Ko
d= (7)
4Eg(Ag ⫹ nAs)
⫹ h2we␥s␸
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Soil-Structure Interaction at Abutment
resistance of the piers, abutments, and piles to the longitudinal
movement of the structure. In the top sketch, Ld is the span
length of the bridge, and kd is the axial stiffness of the modeled
bridge deck. The model is considered to have an effective
width we equal to the spacing of girders. The middle sketch
shows the free displacement do of the bridge deck due to a
positive temperature variation neglecting the restraint provided
by the soil. The sketch at the bottom illustrates the final dis-
placement d of the bridge deck considering the combined ef-
fects of positive temperature variation and the earth pressure
force Fs behind the abutment.
The axial stiffness of the modeled bridge deck is expressed
as follows:
2Eg(Ag ⫹ nAs)
kd = (2)
Ld
where Eg = modulus of elasticity of the girder material; Ag =
cross-sectional area of the girder; As = cross-sectional area of
the portion of the deck slab with an effective width equal to
the spacing of girders; and n = modular ratio defined as the
ratio of the elastic modulus of slab material to that of girder
material.
Assuming nearly identical abutment configurations at both
sides of the bridge and neglecting the translational stiffness of
the piles in the longitudinal direction, the earth pressure force
acting on the abutment is assumed to be completely transferred
to the bridge deck. Then, assuming a triangular earth pressure
distribution behind the abutment, the earth pressure force Fs
is expressed as
1 2
Fs = h we␥s K (3)
2
Ld
Substituting (7) into (1) and simplifying, the earth pressure
coefficient K for the backfill soil is expressed as follows:
2Ko ⫹ ␣␦TLd␸
K= ⱕ Kp (8)
Ld h2we␥s␸
2⫹
2Eg(Ag ⫹ nAs)
PROPOSED STRUCTURE MODEL
For the computer-aided analysis of integral-abutment
bridges subjected to gravitational loads, a separate structure
model is proposed for each construction stage. The proposed
structure models are subject to the following assumptions:
• The analysis of bridges having slab-on-girder-type deck
is reduced to the consideration of one beam and an effec-
tive width of the slab for the purpose of gravity load anal-
ysis. Accordingly, the abutments are idealized to have a
tributary width equal to that of the slab. Similarly, the
number of piers and piles per tributary width is calculated,
and their stiffness is lumped to obtain a single pier or pile
element for analysis purposes.
• The effect of frictional forces between the approach slab
and soil as well as between the wing-walls and soil, re-
sulting from movements due to temperature variations, is
ignored.
• An equivalent pile length is assumed in the structural
model.
• The live load applied on the structure is proportioned to

where h = abutment height; we = tributary width of the ide-

alized bridge model; and ␥s = unit weight of backfill soil.
Substituting (1) into (3), the earth pressure force is expressed
as
1 2
Fs = h we␥s(Ko ⫹ ␸d ) (4)
2

In Fig. 5, the axial force Fd in the deck is expressed as

2Eg(Ag ⫹ nAs)
Fd = (do ⫺ d ) (5)
Ld

The free longitudinal displacement do of the bridge deck due

to a positive temperature variation is expressed as follows
(Roeder and Moorty 1990):
1
do = ␣␦TLd (6) FIG. 6. Actual Structure and Proposed Model for Construc-
2 tion Stage 1

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000 / 243

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.

 one girder considering the transverse distribution of the
live load effects.

Fig. 6 illustrates a typical two-span, prestressed-concrete-

girder integral-abutment bridge and its 2D structure model for
construction stage 1. The naked girder alone is considered in
the structure model assuming that the concrete is not hardened.
Accordingly, the composite action between the girder and slab
and the continuity between the girders of adjacent spans and
at the deck-abutment joints are ignored. The bridge is modeled
considering each span as a simply supported beam. The struc-
ture is analyzed for stage 1 loads tabulated in Table 1. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

resulting internal stresses are stored and are then superimposed

to the internal stresses resulting from the loads that are applied
in stage 2.
For slab-on-steel-girder integral-abutment bridges, the steel
beams are fully assembled to form a continuous beam before
the slab is cast in construction stage 1. Therefore, the hinge
shown at the middle support of the structure model depicted
in Fig. 6 is removed for this type of integral-abutment bridges.
Furthermore, if steel columns are rigidly connected to the steel
girders, the middle simple support shown in Fig. 6 is replaced
by a column element rigidly connected to the beam. Each span
is idealized using 2D beam elements. The structure is then
analyzed for stage 1 loads tabulated in Table 2. The resulting
internal stresses are stored and are then superimposed to the
internal stresses resulting from the loads that are applied in
subsequent stages.
Fig. 7 illustrates the structure model for the rest of the con-
struction stages for the same bridge shown in Fig. 6. The struc-
ture model can be used for the analysis of steel and prestressed
concrete, slab-on-girder, integral-abutment bridges. The bridge
is idealized as a plane frame considering only one girder and
FIG. 7. Actual Structure and Proposed Model for Final Con-
an effective width of slab. Full continuity at the intermediate
struction Stage
supports and at the abutment-deck connection joints is consid-
ered assuming that the concrete is fully hardened. The ideal-
ized abutment and pier members are connected to the deck Deck, Abutment, and Pile Elements
nodes by abutment-deck or pier-deck connection elements.
The pile member is connected to the abutment member by a The stiffness of the deck element is calculated assuming a
pile-abutment connection element. The components used in full composite action between the slab and girder. An effective
the structure idealization of integral-abutment bridges are de- width we, as shown in Fig. 8, is used for the slab. Note that
scribed in the following subsections. the contribution of the slab to the stiffness of the deck element
may not be significant in negative moment regions where the
slab is in tension. However, for the purpose of practicality, an
TABLE 2. Summary of Stage Loading for Slab-on-Steel-Girder effective slab width, obtained for the cases where the slab is
Deck Integral-Abutment Bridges in full compression, is used along the total length of the deck.
Stage Stage name Load Load description The procedures defined in various design codes (Ministry
(1) (2) (3) (4) 1991; AASHTO 1994) may be used to determine the effective
1 Naked steel beam 1 Self-weight of steel beam and
slab width. In the idealized structure model, the deck element
diaphragms must pass through the centroid of the composite section. The
2 Weight of wet concrete slab, vertical coordinates of other elements are determined accord-
diaphragms, and abutment ingly.
2 Composite structure (3n)- 3 Superimposed dead load (e.g., The abutment element is assumed to have a rectangular
superstructure only in sidewalks, curbs, medians) cross section with a thickness t and an effective width we equal
4 Asphalt weight
3 Composite structure (n) 5 As load 3
to that of the slab and is divided into five segments, as shown
6 As load 4 in Fig. 8. Node 5 is located at 0.9 times the abutment thickness
7 Highway live loading and side- for shear resistance check.
walk load, or pedestrian loads To model the piles, the number of piles per effective abut-
at fatigue limit state ment width is first calculated. Then, the area and moment of
8 As load 7 but at serviceability inertia of a single pile is multiplied by the number of piles per
limit state
9 As load 7 but at ULS
effective abutment width to obtain the properties of the ide-
10 Thermal load due to longitudi- alized pile element. The length of the idealized pile element
nal expansion is calculated using the equivalent cantilever method (Greimann
11 Thermal load due to longitudi- et al. 1987; Abendroth and Greimann 1989; Girton et al. 1989)
nal contraction as shown in Fig. 9. The equivalent pile length is a function of
12 Passive earth pressure the pile stiffness, its actual length, and the soil type. The pile
13 At rest earth pressure
14 Active earth pressure
displacements beyond this equivalent length are negligible.
Therefore, the idealized pile element is assumed to have a
244 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 8. Details of Abutment and Deck Elements
FIG. 9. Models for Pile Element
fixed support condition at its base as illustrated in Figs. 7 and
9.
If the soil-spring model shown in Fig. 9 is preferred to ide-
alize the pile, the actual pile length must be used in the model.
The pile element must be divied into a number of equal seg-
ments. Then, using the coefficient of subgrade reaction for the
foundation soil, the lateral stiffness of the soil must be cal-
culated at each node level along the pile member. Then, spring
elements with the calculated lateral soil stiffness are attached
to each node. The base of the pile is assumed to have a roller
pin support. In the case of friction piles, the roller in the model
shown in Fig. 9 must be replaced with a vertical spring with
a stiffness representing the relationship between the displace-
ment and frictional resistance of the pile.
Joint Elements
The joint elements shown in Figs. 7 and 10 are used to
idealize the geometry and stiffness of the bridge components
within the joints. Element 1 in Fig. 10 is used to idealize the
stiffness of the deck within the joint. Its length extends from
the geometric centerline of the abutment element to the face
of the abutment. Obviously, the moment of inertia of the deck
element within the joint is very high as any cross section taken
at that location has a vertical dimension equal to the sum of
the deck depth and the abutment height up to the soffit. There-
fore, the part of the deck within the joint is modeled as a rigid
element. Similarly, element 2 in Fig. 10 is used to model the
part of the abutment within the joint as a rigid element. Ele-
ment 3 is also modeled as a rigid member. Nonetheless, it does
not have any structural significance. It is used to enable the
J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.
FIG. 10. Rigid and Connection Elements’ Details at Joints
application of earth pressure or other types of loading above
the geometric centerline of the deck. Element 4 is modeled as
a rigid member to idealize the depth of the deck measured
from its geometric centerline to the top of the bearing or pier.
Connection Elements
Connection elements are used to define the rotational and/
or translational stiffness of the joints at various parts of an
integral-abutment bridge. These elements have an infinitesimal
length of 10 mm.
The connection element at the deck-abutment joint, shown
in Fig. 10, is used to idealize the rotational stiffness of the
connection between the deck and the abutment. Normally, if
adequate continuity is provided between the slab, girders, and
abutment using a proper reinforcement detailing, connection
elements are assumed as rigid. Otherwise, the joint may be
idealized as hinge or semirigid by adjusting the stiffness of
the connection element. For hinge idealization, the connection
element is assigned a very small flexural stiffness to permit
free rotation of the deck (1/1,000 of the abutment stiffness).
For semirigid idealization, the connection element is assigned
a flexural stiffness smaller than that of the abutment to allow
some relative rotation of joint elements. If the piles are rigidly
fixed to the abutment, the connection element at the abutment-
pile joint, shown in Fig. 10, is assigned stiffness properties
equal to those of the idealized pile element. For a pin con-
nection at the piles’ ends, the connection element is assigned
a stiffness equal to 1/1,000 of that of the idealized pile ele-
ment.
If the deck is isolated by a set of bearings from the pier,
then the connection element at the deck-pier joint, shown in
Fig. 10, is used to idealize the stiffness of the bearings. The
connection element is assumed as rigid if the pier is mono-
lithically connected to the bridge deck. For piers fixed to a
rigid foundation, the connection element at the idealized pier
base, shown in Fig. 10, is assigned stiffness properties equal
to those of the idealized pier element. For a pin connection at
the pier base, the connection element is assigned a stiffness
equal to 1/1,000 of that of the idealized pier element. The
rotational stiffness of the foundation can also be modeled us-
ing the connection element at the pier base.
COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS OF
INTEGRAL-ABUTMENT BRIDGES
A computer program is developed for the analysis of inte-
gral-abutment bridges using the proposed analysis method and
structure model. The developed computer program uses an in-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000 / 245

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 11. Operation of Developed Computer Program
house structural analysis program (SAP) as the main tool for
the analysis of integral-abutment bridges. A graphical user in-
terface (GUI) is developed to define the geometric and struc-
tural properties of, and the loads acting on, integral-abutment
bridges. Several postprocessor programs are coded for proc-
essing the user-input data and intermediate output results. The
processed data is used as input for the subsequent operations
of SAP for stage-by-stage analysis of the structure. Addition-
ally, programs are developed for calculating the resistance ca-
pacity of the structural components. A control program man-
ages the database and execution sequence of the postprocessor
programs based on the type of integral-abutment bridge.
Fig. 11 shows the operation of the system for a prestressed
concrete girder integral-abutment bridge. In the figure, the files
denoted with OP are output and those denoted with IN are
input files. The numbers preceded by a # are file numbers used
in the system. The files denoted with the same numbers are
identical regardless of whether they are input or output files.
The control program first allows the user to define the gen-
eral properties of the bridge using a GUI as shown in Fig. 11.
The GUI then produces a structured data file denoted as OP
#1 in the figure. The file contains information about the prop-
erties of the integral-abutment bridge defined by the user. The
control program then initiates processor program P1 which
uses the file generated by the GUI as input (IN #1). Program
P1 then outputs file OP #2. This file is used by SAP for stage
1 analysis of the bridge. The results generated by SAP for
stage 1 analysis are stored in file OP #3. The control program
then initiates processor program P2. The program uses the files
IN #1 and IN #3 as input data that are generated by the GUI
and SAP, respectively. Program P2 generates file OP #4. This
file is used by SAP for stage 2 analysis of the bridge. The
results generated by SAP for stage 2 are stored in OP #5.
Finally, resistance module P3 is invoked by the control pro-
gram to calculate the member resistances at each construction
stage. The resistance and responses for the bridge components
are printed in file OP #6.
The above procedure may be followed to analyze integral-
abutment bridges using any conventional structural analysis
program such as SAP 90 (Wilson and Habibullah 1990). The
functions of the GUI and control program may be passed to a
user. The user has to prepare the input data for the conven-
tional structural analysis program for the analysis of the bridge
using an appropriate structure model and loads for stage 1.
The same procedure is repeated using the appropriate structure
model and loads for the subsequent stages. The responses from
246 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000
J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.
preceding stages are then superimposed manually to obtain the
cumulative responses.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
The relative stiffness of horizontal and vertical components
in a rigid frame dictates the distribution of forces and mo-
ments. Accordingly, the ratio of deck bending stiffness to
equivalent abutment stiffness is an important characteristic of
an integral-abutment bridge. The equivalent abutment stiffness
is the stiffness of a single member that represents the com-
bined performance of the abutment and piles. This ratio is
lower for integral-abutment bridges with longer spans. The
effect of continuous frame action is more pronounced in such
structures, whereas integral-abutment bridges with shorter
spans and/or flexible abutments and piles have a higher deck
bending stiffness to equivalent abutment stiffness ratio. Such
structures may behave like a continuous beam with simply
supported ends when subjected to vertical loading.
Numerous symmetrical, single-span, integral-abutment
bridges with various deck bending stiffness to equivalent abut-
ment stiffness ratios are analyzed using the developed com-
puter program, which is based on the proposed analysis
method and structure model. The same integral-abutment
bridges also are analyzed using the conventional analysis pro-
cedure and structure model. The results obtained from both
analyses are compared in Fig. 12. In the figure, the vertical
axis is the ratio RM of the maximum live load span moment
obtained using the proposed method to that obtained using the
conventional method. The horizontal axis is the ratio Rs of
deck bending stiffness to equivalent abutment stiffness.
In the conventional analysis method, the structure is mod-
eled as a simply supported beam for the design of the deck.
Single-span integral-abutment bridges with larger ratios of
deck bending stiffness to equivalent abutment stiffness behave
more like a simply supported bridge when subjected to vertical
loading. Consequently, as shown in Fig. 12, the ratio of the
maximum live load span moments approaches unity for such
bridges. However, larger differences between the maximum
live load span moments are observed for integral-abutment
bridges with smaller ratios of deck bending stiffness to equiv-
alent abutment stiffness. This basically demonstrates that more
economical deck designs may be obtained when full frame
action is considered for the analysis of such structures. Pre-
vious studies also demonstrated that the maximum live load
span moment in an integral-abutment bridge may be as little
as 50% of that in a simply supported bridge (Thippeswamy et
al. 1994).
To study the impact of the conventional and proposed meth-
FIG. 12. Comparison of Live Load Span Moments Obtained
Using Developed Computer Program and Conventional Analy-
sis Method
 ods on the design, two existing integral-abutment bridges in
Ontario, Canada, are analyzed using both methods. The first
one is a single-span prestressed concrete bridge. It has a span
length of 30 m and an abutment height of 5 m. The steel H
piles at the abutments are detailed to have hinge connections
at their tops by cutting the flanges along the embedded portion
of the piles within the abutment. Effective design temperature
variations of ⫺38 and 18⬚C were used in the analysis of the
bridge. The second one is a symmetrical, three-span, contin-
uous, steel bridge. The length of the side and center spans are
12 and 18 m, respectively, and the abutment height is 4 m.
Effective design temperature variations of ⫺52 and 30⬚C were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used in the analysis of the bridge. For both bridges the gran-
ular backfill soil at the abutments has a unit weight of 20 kN/
m3 and an angle of internal friction of 30⬚. The slope ␸ of the
passive earth pressure variation is obtained as 24 m⫺1 for the
backfill soil. The full passive earth pressure condition is as-
sumed to develop at the abutments for the conventional
method. Accordingly, a passive earth pressure coefficient of
3.0 is obtained. For the proposed method, the passive earth
pressure coefficient is calculated as 0.56 for the first bridge
and 0.68 for the second bridge using (8). The bridges are an-
alyzed considering all possible load combinations at the ulti-
mate limit states (ULS). The optimum responses obtained from
both design methods are then compared.
Analysis results for the first bridge demonstrated that at the
ULS the maximum span moment obtained from the conven-
tional method (10,543 kN ⭈ m) is 25% larger than that obtained
from the proposed method (8,471 kN ⭈ m). This discrepancy is
a result of the assumptions made in the conventional method,
where the beneficial effects of continuity at the joints and earth
pressure forces applied at the abutments, in reducing the span
moment, are neglected. It is noteworthy that the maximum
span moment obtained from the proposed method is due to
the combined effects of dead load, live load, temperature de-
crease, and active earth pressure. The conventional design
method also yields much larger forces at the deck-abutment
joints. The maximum deck moment obtained at the deck-abut-
ment joint is 7,691 kN ⭈ m for the conventional method and
2,716 kN ⭈ m for the proposed method. Similar differences also
are obtained for the forces in the abutments and piles. The
maximum moment at the abutment top is 1,142 kN ⭈ m/m for
the conventional method and 587 kN ⭈ m/m for the proposed
method. This discrepancy is mainly due to the differences in
the magnitude of the passive earth pressure forces used by the
conventional and proposed methods. The conventional method
considers a full passive earth pressure at the abutments,
whereas the proposed method considers only a partial passive
earth pressure as a function of structure movement and soil
properties. The moment at the abutment bottom and pile top
is obtained as zero because a hinge connection at the pile-
abutment joint was assumed in the analysis. It is noteworthy
that the ultimate resistance of the piles exceeds the maximum
responses for all load cases.
Analysis results for the second bridge demonstrated that at
the ULS comparable span moments are obtained from both
methods (the maximum moments for the side and center spans
are, respectively, 1,272 and 1,950 kN ⭈ m for the conventional
and 1,244 and 1,953 kN ⭈ m for the proposed methods). How-
ever, the maximum moment at the inner supports obtained
from the conventional method (993 kN ⭈ m) is 17% larger than
that obtained from the proposed method (848 kN ⭈ m). The
above results demonstrate that for continuous bridges, the con-
tinuity at the deck-abutment joints and the earth pressure
forces applied at the abutments may not have a major impact
on the span moments but may influence the inner support mo-
ments. The conventional method still yields much larger forces
at the deck-abutment joints. The deck moment obtained at the
J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.
deck-abutment joint is 1,802 kN ⭈ m for the conventional
method and 856 kN ⭈ m for the proposed method. Similar dif-
ferences are also obtained for the forces in the abutments and
piles.
CONCLUSIONS
A computer program for the analysis and design of integral-
abutment bridges has been developed. The developed program
uses a simplified, but realistic, structure model to idealize the
behavior of integral-abutment bridges and load distribution
among their various components. A soil-structure interaction
model to calculate the passive earth pressure at the abutments
is also developed and implemented in the computer program.
The program is capable of analyzing integral-abutment bridges
for each construction stage and carrying the effects of applied
loads on the structure members from a previous construction
stage to the next. The analysis method and structure model
employed in the developed computer program are compared
with the conventional analysis method and structure model
currently used by many structural engineers for the design of
integral-abutment bridges in North America and Europe. The
following are observed:
• The conventional analysis method neglects the continuity
of the structure at the deck-pier and deck-abutment joints
for the deck design. The proposed structure model used
in the program reflects the effect of the continuity at such
joints on the performance of the bridge deck.
• The effect of axial load in the deck due to earth pressure
forces at the abutments is neglected in the conventional
analysis method. Such effects are fully considered in the
proposed analysis method and structure model.
• The conventional analysis method recommends the use of
full passive pressure for the design of deck-abutment
joints. The proposed soil-structure interaction model may
result in smaller earth pressure forces, which may lead to
a more economical deck-abutment joint design.
• For single-span bridges, the conventional analysis method
does not consider the beneficial effect of earth pressure
forces applied at abutments when calculating the maxi-
mum span moment for the deck design. The proposed
structure model considers such beneficial effects in the
design of the deck.
• The comparison of analysis results from the conventional
and proposed analysis methods demonstrated that it may
be possible to obtain more economical designs using the
proposed analysis method and structure model.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
AASHTO. (1994). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
Abendroth, R. E., and Greimann, L. F. (1989). ‘‘A rational design ap-
proach for integral-abutment bridge piles.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1233,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 12–23.
Abendroth, R. E., Greimann, L. F., and Ebner, P. B. (1989). ‘‘Abutment
pile design for jointless bridges.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(11),
2914–2929.
Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M. K., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S. K., and Kim,
S. G. (1991). ‘‘Manuals for the design of bridge foundations.’’ NCHRP
Rep. 343, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Burke, M. P., Jr. (1988). ‘‘Bridge deck joints.’’ NCHRP Synthesis of Hwy.
Pract., No. 141, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Burke, M. P., Jr. (1990a). ‘‘Integral bridge design is on the rise.’’ AISC
Modern Steel Constr., 30(4), 9–11.
Burke, M. P., Jr. (1990b). ‘‘Integral bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1275,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Burke, M. P., Jr. (1993a). ‘‘Integral bridges: Attributes and limitations.’’
Transp. Res. Rec. 1393, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1–8.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000 / 247
 Burke, M. P., Jr. (1993b). ‘‘The design of concrete integral bridges.’’
Concrete Int., June, 37–42.
Burke, M. P., Jr. (1994). ‘‘Semi-integral bridges: Movements and forces.’’
Transp. Res. Rec. 1460, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1–7.
Clough, G. M., and Duncan, J. M. (1991). Foundation engineering hand-
book, 2nd Ed., H. Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Emanual, J. H., Hulsey, J. L., Best, J. L., Senne, J. H., and Thompson,
L. E. (1973). ‘‘Current design practice for bridge superstructures con-
nected to flexible substructures.’’ Civil Engrg. Study 73-3, University
of Missouri at Rolla, Rolla, Mo.
Federal Highway Administration. (1987). ‘‘Seismic design and retrofit
manual for highway bridges.’’ FHWA-IP-87-6, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Girton, D. D., Hawkinson, T. R., and Greimann, L. F. (1991). ‘‘Validation
of design recommendations for integral-abutment piles.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 117(7), 2117–2134.
Girton, D. D., Hawkinson, T. R., Greimann, L. F., Bergenson, K., Ndon,
U., and Abendorth, R. E. (1989). ‘‘Validation of design recommenda-
tions for integral-abutment piles.’’ Proj. HR-292, Iowa Department of
Transportation, Ames, Iowa.
Greimann, L. F., Abendtroth, R. E., Johnson, D. E., and Ebner, P. B.
(1987). ‘‘Pile design and tests for integral-abutment bridges.’’ Final
Rep., Proj. HR-273, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa.
Hambly, E. C., and Nicholson, B. A. (1990). ‘‘Prestressed beam integral
bridges.’’ The Struct. Engr., London, 68(23), 474–481.
Hamley, E. C. (1992). ‘‘Integral bridge abutment details in practice and
theory.’’ Transp. Res. Lab. Rec. 19, Crowthorne, U.K.
248 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2000
J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:240-248.
Hayward, A. (1992). ‘‘Continuous and jointless steel bridges.’’ Transp.
Res. Lab. Rec. 19, Crowthorne, U.K., 83–90.
Husain, I., and Bagnariol, D. (1996). ‘‘Integral-abutment bridges.’’ Rep.
SO-96-01, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, St. Catharines, Ont.,
Canada.
Loveall, C. L. (1985). ‘‘Jointless bridge decks.’’ Civ. Engrg., ASCE,
55(11), 64–67.
Ministry of Transportation. (1991). Ontario highway bridge design code,
3rd Ed., Quality and Standards Division, Downsview, Ont., Canada.
Roeder, C. W., and Moorty, S. (1990). ‘‘Thermal movements in bridges.’’
Transp. Res. Rec. 1290, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 135–143.
Soltani, A. A., and Kukreti, A. R. (1992). ‘‘Performance evaluation of
integral-abutment bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1371, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, D.C., 17–25.
Steiger, D. J. (1993). ‘‘Jointless bridges provide fuel for controversy.’’
Roads and Bridges, 31(11), 48–54.
Thippeswamy, H. K., Raju, P. R., and Gangarao, H. V. S. (1994).
‘‘Parametric study of single-span jointless steel bridges.’’ Transp. Res.
Rec. 1460, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, E. L., and Habibullah, A. (1990). SAP 90, computer software for
structural and earthquake engineering, Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkeley, Calif.
Wolde-Tinsae, A. M., Klinger, J. E., and Mullangi, R. (1988a). ‘‘Bridge
deck joint rehabilitation or retrofitting.’’ Final Rep., Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Wolde-Tinsae, A. M., Klinger, J. E., and White, E. (1988b). ‘‘Performance
of jointless bridges.’’ J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 2(2), 111–125.