Salman Dissertation 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/344991560
Parametric Investigation of Integral Abutment Bridges: Behavior and Pile

Buckling Analysis
Thesis · May 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10938.21444
CITATIONS READS
0 558
1 author:
Nassr Salman
University Of Kufa
7 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nassr Salman on 30 October 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Parametric Investigation of Integral Abutment Bridges: Behavior and Pile Buckling
Analysis
BY
NASSR NOORI IBRAHIM SALMAN

B.S., University of Kufa, Iraq, 1998
M.S., University of Technology, Iraq, 2001
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Chicago, 2018
Chicago, Illinois
Defense Committee:
Mohsen Issa, Chair and Advisor

Ahmed Shabana, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Craig Foster
Krishna Reddy
Eduard Karpov
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would to thank the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Iraq for providing
the financial support for my PhD study in the United States according to a scholarship program.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, professor Mohsen Issa, for his
continuing support and guidance throughout research stages, which without him this work couldn’t
be accomplished.
Special thanks are due to committee members, Alexander Chudnovsky, Craig Foster, Eduard
Karpov, Krishna Reddy and Ahmad Shabana for their valuable suggestions about thesis subject
and teaching throughout PhD program.
I am deeply grateful to my wife, Fatimah, for always being there for me. I thank my brothers
Mohammed and Firas for their support and handling many issues in Iraq while I was away.
I am also very grateful to my friend Timothy Doane from University of California, Davis for
reviewing the manuscript of this thesis and his valuable suggestions. His efforts are greatly
acknowledged.
Thanks to all my colleagues who in one way or another helped me in accomplishing this work.
ii
ABSTRACT
Integral Abutment bridges (IABs) are special types of bridges where expansion joints in the
superstructure are eliminated and the thermally induced lateral demand is transferred to the
supporting substructure system. As such, the substructure system moves back and forth following
seasonal bridge expansion and contraction. These bridges have gained a wide popularity and have
become a preferred choice among Department of Transportations and design offices around the
world because they have numerous advantages over the conventional bridges, including low
construction and maintenance cost, longer serviceability and higher stability, improved riding
quality and better seismic performance. Although of the proven advantages of IABs, there are no
uniform national guidelines for designing or constructing these structures, and each US state has
its own design limitations based on experience and performance of the previously constructed
bridges. Absence of the design guidelines is attributed to their complex behavior which is not fully
understood. The current study is two-fold; the first part involves a calibration process for an
instrumented bridge using a three-dimensional finite element (FE) model. The abutment and pile
displacements were calibrated with their experimental counterparts. Several shrinkage models and
temperature gradient scenarios were examined to predict the most representative parameters in
simulating realistic behavior. Based on the calibration process, a parametric study was conducted
to investigate the effect of bridge length, pile size and orientation, and type and stiffness of the soil
around the pile on the critical bridge responses which include: abutment displacement, pile
displacement, and deck and girder stresses. The second part addresses pile buckling under
combined effect of axial load and lateral cyclic displacement. Eleven detailed nonlinear finite
element models, experimentally validated, were established for steel HP sections with two axis
orientations to estimate the displacement capacities of the piles supporting IABs. A coupon test-
iii
validated cyclic plasticity model is incorporated in the finite element analysis to capture the
hysteresis of the steel behavior under cyclic loading. Displacement capacities are also compared
with an available analytical method. Length limits for IABs were estimated based on displacement
capacities of the HP sections and are compared with the limitations of the US Department of
Transportations’ current practice. Design recommendations for IABs are also presented.
iv
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Objective of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Structure of the Study ............................................................................................................ 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Field Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Finite Element Modelling ..................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Soil Modelling Methods ....................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Parametric Studies ............................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Stability Requirements and Fatigue ..................................................................................... 18
2.7 Bridge Geometric Limitations .............................................................................................. 19
3. SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ..................................................................................... 23
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Soil-Pile Interaction .............................................................................................................. 24
3.2.1 p-y Curves ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1.1 p-y Method for Clay .............................................................................................. 25
3.2.1.1.1 Soft Clay Having Free Water: Static Loading Case ......................................... 25
3.2.1.1.2 Soft Clay Having Free Water: Cyclic Loading Case ......................................... 28
3.2.1.1.3 Stiff Clay Having Free Water: Static Loading Case ......................................... 29
3.2.1.1.4 Stiff Clay in the Presence of Free Water: Cyclic Loading ............................... 33
3.2.1.1.5 Stiff Clay with no Free Water: Static Loading ................................................ 34
3.2.1.1.6 Stiff Clay with no Free Water: Cyclic Loading ................................................ 35
3.2.1.2 p-y Curves for Sand ............................................................................................... 36
3.2.1.3 p-y Curves for Soil Having Cohesion and Angle of Friction................................... 41
3.2.2 Program LPILE ............................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Abutment-Backfill Interaction ............................................................................................. 46
v
4. CALIBRATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL................................................................. 52
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 52
4.2 Bridge Description................................................................................................................ 53
4.3 Finite Element Modelling ..................................................................................................... 55
4.4 Modelling Soil-Pile Interaction............................................................................................. 56
4.5 Modelling Soil-Abutment Interaction .................................................................................. 58
4.6 Pile Finite Element Model .................................................................................................... 60
4.7 Finite Element Model of the Bridge ..................................................................................... 70
4.8 Calibration Matrix ................................................................................................................ 74
4.9 Results .................................................................................................................................. 77
4.9.1 Log-Spiral Theory .......................................................................................................... 78
4.9.2 Rankine Case ................................................................................................................. 82
4.10 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 88
5. PARAMETRIC STUDY .......................................................................................................... 91
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 91
5.2 Parametric Study Base Case................................................................................................. 92
5.3 Selection of Parameters ....................................................................................................... 95
5.4 Soil Properties Used in the Parametric Study ...................................................................... 96
5.5 Finite Element Model Setup ................................................................................................ 98
5.6 Effect of Bridge Length....................................................................................................... 100
5.7 Effect of Bridge Length on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles ................................ 112
5.8 Effect of Soil Type on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles........................................ 114
5.9 Effect of Pile Size on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles ......................................... 116
5.10 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 118
6. PILE BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF HP PILES IN INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGES .. 120
6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 120
6.2 Finite Element Model Setup .............................................................................................. 121
6.3 Validation of the FE model................................................................................................. 124
6.4 Pile selection, Boundary Conditions and Loading History ................................................. 133
6.5 Soil-Pile Interaction ............................................................................................................ 137
6.6 Buckling Failure Criterion ................................................................................................... 138
vi
6.7 Results ................................................................................................................................ 139
6.8 Effect of Soil Types Surrounding Piles................................................................................ 146
6.9 Comparison with Abendroth and Greimann (1989) Method ............................................ 148
6.10 Integral Abutment Bridge Length .................................................................................... 152
6.11 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 154
7. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 155
7.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 155
7.2 Recommendations for Future Work .................................................................................. 157
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 BRIGE DETAILS MONITORED BY Frosch et al. (2004, 2011) ........................... 10
TABLE 2.2 MAXIMUM LENGTH LIMITS FOR STEEL AND CONCRETE IABS IN CLAY
(Dicleli and Albhaisi, 2003) .......................................................................................................... 19
TABLE 2.3 SUMMARY OF IAB RESPONSES (ADAPTED FROM KUNIN AND
ALLAMPALI, 2000) .................................................................................................................... 21
TABLE 2.4 BUCKLING DISPLACEMENT CAPACITIES OF HP SECTIONS (Frosch et al.,
2004) ............................................................................................................................................. 22
TABLE 3.1 TYPICAL VALUES OF 50 FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAY (Peck et
al., 1974) ....................................................................................................................................... 27
TABLE 3.2 TYPICAL VALUES OF 𝑘𝑠 ...................................................................................... 30
TABLE 3.3 TYPICAL VALUES OF 50 FOR OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY (Skempton,
1951) ............................................................................................................................................. 31
TABLE 3.4 REPRESENTATIVE VALUS FOR 𝑘𝑝𝑦 FOR SAND BELOW WATER TABLE
(SUBMERGED) ........................................................................................................................... 39
TABLE 3.5 REPRESENTATIVE VALUES FOR 𝑘𝑝𝑦 FOR SAND ABOVE WATER TABLE
....................................................................................................................................................... 39
TABLE 3.6 APPROXIMATE WALL MOVEMENT RRQUIRED TO REACH MAXIMUM
AND MINUMUM EARTH PRESSURE (Clough and Duncan, 1991) ....................................... 49
TABLE 4.1 PILE PROPERTIES OF BRIDGE SR-18 ................................................................ 62
TABLE 4.2 SOIL BORING FOR BENT 1 OF SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2011)................................ 62
TABLE 4.3 SOIL BORING DATA FOR BENT 6 OF SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2011) .................. 63
TABLE 4.4 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSISTENCY (Prakash and Sharma, 1990) ....... 65
TABLE 4.5 SPT-N VALUES VS ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION FOR COHESIONLESS
SOILS (Fang, 1991) ...................................................................................................................... 65
TABLE 4.6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT SOIL TYPES (Das, 2011)..................... 66
TABLE 4.7 SOIL PARAMETERS USED IN LPILE MODELS ................................................ 67
TABLE 4.8 CALBRATION MATRIX ....................................................................................... 75
TABLE 5.1 PennDOT 28/78 PRESTRESSED GIRDERS DIMENSIONS (PennDOT) (ALL
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES) ............................................................................................... 94
TABLE 5.2 PARAMERTERS USED IN THE STUDY .............................................................. 95
TABLE 5.3 HP SECTIONS PROPERTIES ................................................................................. 96
TABLE 5.4 SOIL PROPERTIES AROUND THE PILES ........................................................... 97
TABLE 5.5 NORMALIZED DISPLACEMENTS VERSUS BRIDGE LENGTHD ................ 105
TABLE 6.1 DISPLACEMENT PROTOCOL USED IN THE TEST BY Frosch et al. (2004) . 127
TABLE 6.2 HP SECTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE PARAMETRIC STUDY ...................... 134
TABLE 6.3 DISPLCEMENT CAPACITIES OF A SET OF HP SECTIONS EMBEDDED IN A
MEDIUM SAND ........................................................................................................................ 139
TABLE 6.4 FE vs Frosch et al. (2004, 2011) BUCKLING CAPACITES ................................. 145
TABLE 6.5 SAND PROPERTIES USED IN THE STUDY ..................................................... 147
viii
TABLE 6.6 CLAY PROPERTIES USED IN THE STUDY ..................................................... 147
TABLE 6.7 BUCKLING DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES
..................................................................................................................................................... 148
TABLE 6.8 COMPARISON BETWEEN ABENDROTH ET AL. (1989) AND FEM ............. 151
TABLE 6.9 MAXIMUM LENGTH OF INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGES....................... 153
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Typical ordinary and IAB .............................................................................................. 2

Figure 2.1 Abutment displacement before and after traffic opening (Kim and Laman, 2012) ...... 9
Figure 2.2 Ratcheting phenomenon for the IAB (Frosch et al., 2011) ........................................ 12
Figure 3.1 Set of p-y curves along the pile depth (Reese and Imple, 2001) ................................. 25
Figure 3.2 Schematic representation of p-y curves for soft clay with free water under static load
case (Matlock, 1970) ..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.3 P-y curve for soft clay with free water under cyclic loading (Matlock, 1970) ........... 29
Figure 3.4 p-y method for stiff clay under static loading in the presence of free water ............... 30
Figure 3.5 Graphical values of A (subscripts refer to static and cyclic loading). (Reese and Imple,
2001) ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3.6 p-y method for stiff clay under cyclic loading in the presence of free water (Reese et
al. 1975) ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 3.7 p-y method for stiff clay under static loading with no free water (Welch and Reese,
1972) ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 3.8 p-y curves for stiff clay with no free water under cyclic loading case (Reese and
Imple, 2001) .................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 3.9 Coefficients of As and Ac ............................................................................................ 38
Figure 3.10 Nondimensional soil resistance coefficients with depth ........................................... 38
Figure 3.11 Computation of p-y curve for sand (Reese et al., 1974) ............................................ 40
Figure 3.12 coefficient Kc ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 3.13 coefficient K ............................................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.14 proposed p-y curve for c- soil (Reese and Impe, 2001) .......................................... 45
Figure 3.15 Lateral earth pressure cases ....................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.16 Wall movement versus earth pressure for ideal conditions (Fang, 1991) ................. 50
Figure 3.17 Wall movement versus earth pressure for compacted backfill (Fang, 1991) ............ 50
Figure 4.1 SR-18 over Missessenewa River, IN (Lovell, 2010) ................................................... 54
Figure 4.2 Plan and cross section of bridge SR-18 over Mississinewa River .............................. 54
Figure 4.3 Typical details of abutment of SR-18 (Lovell, 2010).................................................. 55
Figure 4.4 Clough and Duncan digitized curves ........................................................................... 59
Figure 4.5 pile distribution of bridge SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2004)................................................ 61
Figure 4.6 spring tributary area for the pile .................................................................................. 64
Figure 4.7 p-y curves for medium-Sand ....................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.8 Displacement along pile depth for different soil types ................................................ 68
Figure 4.9 ABAQUS vs LPILE computed displacements ............................................................ 70
Figure 4.10 Bridge FE model........................................................................................................ 71
Figure 4.11 Shrinkage strain of the bridge deck ........................................................................... 72
Figure 4.12 Force-displacement curves for SR-18 Backfill (Rankine with =35o)...................... 73
Figure 4.13 Flow chart of the FE modelling ................................................................................. 76
Figure 4.14 Location of the convergence meter (Frosch et al., 2010) .......................................... 77
Figure 4.15 Case (1) TD, TG, SD, SG, Log-spiral theory ............................................................ 79
x
Figure 4.16 Case (2) TD, TG, SD, Log-spiral theory ................................................................... 79
Figure 4.17 Case (3) TD, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory ...................................... 80
Figure 4.18 Case (4) TD, SD (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory .................................................... 81
Figure 4.19 Case (5) TD plus 50% TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory ................ 82
Figure 4.20 Case (6) TD, TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory .................................. 83
Figure 4.21 Case (7) TD plus 50% TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory ................... 84
Figure 4.22 Case (8) TD plus 50% TG, SD (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory ................................. 85
Figure 4.23 Case (9) TD plus 50% TG, SD (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory ................................. 86
Figure 4.24 Case (10) TD plus 50% TG, SD (ACI-209), Rankine theory ................................... 86
Figure 4.25 Calculated vs Measured earth pressure behind abutment.......................................... 88
Figure 5.1 Bridge 211 in central Pennsylvania (Kim and Laman, 2012) ..................................... 92
Figure 5.2 Bridge 211 a. bridge layout b. section through bridge ................................................ 93
Figure 5.3 PennDOT 28/78 prestressed concrete girder section (PennDOT) ............................... 94
Figure 5.4 Load-displacement of the backfill soil ........................................................................ 97
Figure 5.5 Typical bridge FE model used in the parametric study ............................................... 99
Figure 5.6 substructure response considering various bridge span lengths. ............................... 101
Figure 5.7 Abutment displacement vs bridge length for different pile sections and orientations
..................................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 5.8 Abutment displacement vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
(bridge expansion) ...................................................................................................................... 103
(bridge contraction) ..................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 5.10 Normalized bridge displacement versus bridge length (bridge expansion) ............ 105
Figure 5.11 proposed equation compared to finite element model results ................................. 106
Figure 5.12 Max pile displacement vs bridge length for various pile sections and orientations
Figure 5.13 Max pile displacement vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
Figure 5.14 Max pile axial stress vs bridge length for various pile sections and orientations
Figure 5.15 Max pile axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 (bridge expansion) ................ 110
Figure 5.16 Max deck axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
Figure 5.17 Maximum girder axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
Figure 5.18 Displacement profile for H10x57 and medium sand for various bridge lengths and
pile orientations ........................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 5.19 Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 and medium sand for various bridge lengths
and pile orientations .................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 5.20 Displacement profile for H10x57 for various soil types and weak axis orientation
(Bridge length = 200 ft) .............................................................................................................. 115
Figure 5.21 Max Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 for various soil types and weak axis
orientation (Bridge length = 200 ft) ............................................................................................ 115
xi
Figure 5.22 Displacement profile for H10x57 for soft clay and weak axis orientation.............. 117
Figure 5.23 Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 for soft clay and weak axis orientation ........ 117
Figure 6.1 One-dimensional representation of the nonlinear model (ABAQUS manual) .......... 122
Figure 6.2 Three-dimensional representation of the nonlinear model. (ABAQUS manual) ...... 123
Figure 6.3 Calibration of the of the material cyclic response ..................................................... 124
Figure 6.4 Schematic diagram of the experimental testing (Frosch et al., 2011) ....................... 125
Figure 6.5 Typical Pile model in IAB ......................................................................................... 125
Figure 6.6 Typical FE model of the test setup ............................................................................ 128
Figure 6.7 HP10X42 response: Load-deflection hysteresis at column top ................................. 129
Figure 6.8 HP10X42 response: Lateral load fluctuations along step 2....................................... 130
Figure 6.9 HP10X42 response: Buckling of column in the experimental testing ...................... 131
Figure 6.10 HP10X42 response: FE buckling mode .................................................................. 131
Figure 6.11 HP12X53 response: Load-deflection hysteresis at column top ............................... 132
Figure 6.12 HP12X53 response: Lateral load fluctuations along step 2..................................... 133
Figure 6.13 Typical pile idealization in parametric studies: weak axis ...................................... 135
Figure 6.14 Typical pile idealization in parametric studies: strong axis .................................... 136
Figure 6.15 Load-deflection relationship for HP12x63 weak axis ............................................. 141
Figure 6.16 Lateral load fluctuation with time for HP12x63 weak axis ..................................... 142
Figure 6.17 variation of strain with step time for HP 12x63 at buckling displacement ............. 143
Figure 6.18 Buckling ductility ratios for HP sections in medium sand ...................................... 144
Figure 6.19 Typical cantilever pile model in IABs (Frosch et al., 2004) ................................... 145
Figure 6.20 Lateral displacement profiles of HP sections at buckling ....................................... 150
xii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Integral abutment bridges (IABs), or jointless bridges, are single or continuous multiple span
bridges that have no expansion joints in the superstructure or bearing system in the support. The
girders and deck slab are cast integrally with abutments at the end spans. Figure 1.1 shows a typical
ordinary bridge and an IAB with the obvious distinctions in the end connection. The main
difference between conventional bridges and the IAB is that the thermally induced lateral demand
and time-dependent effects (creep and shrinkage) in the conventional bridges are accommodated
by the expansion joints in the superstructure while in case of IABs, this demand is carried by the
abutment-pile system at the bridge ends. The piles in the substructures of IABs are often designed
as a single row of HP steel sections orientated to the weak axis to increase the system flexibility.
This system moves back and forth following superstructure expansion and contraction due to
seasonal and daily temperature variations. This cyclic movement induces stresses in the
superstructure and results in pile hinging at the pile-abutment interface which must be considered
in the pile design. Furthermore, the pile in IABs is vulnerable to local flange buckling over
continuous cycling process, which leads to a substantial decrease in the axial load carrying capacity
of the pile because of the strength degradation. However, IABs provide many advantages over
conventional jointed bridges, including eliminating the initial construction and life cycle
maintenance cost of expansion joints, reducing the deterioration of substructure elements by
preventing leaking water and deicing chemicals from defective joints, in addition to providing
better riding quality. Some studies have demonstrated their high seismic performance as well
(Frosch et al, 2009; Burke, 1993). Defective expansion joints and other underlying affected
1
substructure components cost millions of dollars in maintenance each year (Alampalli and
Yannotti, 1998). The cost of direct and indirect damage of the bridges due to corrosion was
estimated to be $80 billion in the year 1998 (Koch et al. 2001). For that reason, IABs have become
the preferred alternative for many bridge owners and designers. Kunin and Alampalli (2000)
reported in a survey that more than 30 US states and Canadian provinces stated that IABs perform
as well as or even better than conventional bridges. However, there are many new challenges
associated with the new technology. The system has a complex behavior and there are no stationary
provisions for designing or constructing these types of structures. Because of the limited
knowledge about the behavior of IABs, design procedures are either conservative or based on the
performance of previously constructed bridges. Researchers have been working since the early
1980s to develop, enhance, and refine their design guidelines. It is expected that these bridges will
soon replace conventional bridges for short and medium length spans.
Deck Approach Slab Deck Approach Slab
Integral Abutment Integral Abutment

Girder Girder
Expansion Joint
Pile Pile
Ordinary Bridges Integral Abutment bridges
Figure 1.1 Typical ordinary and IAB
2
1.2 Problem Statement
Despite the proven advantages of IABs over conventional jointed bridges which are reflected in
terms of cost, structural performance and long-life serviceability, there are still many controversies
surrounding design criteria of these structures, including the maximum safe length of the bridge,
size and orientation of the piles, the soil-structure interaction, and time-dependent effects. There
is no consensus among states’ departments of transportations over the design guidelines of IABs,
and construction practices vary widely from one state to another. Each US state has its own
geometric limitations built on past practical experience and performance of previously constructed
bridges, rather than implementing a rigorous scientific approach (Greimann et. al., 1986). Even
the AASHTO specifications do not contain guidelines to design or construct IABs. The design of
IABs should ideally consider both flexibility and strength capacity of the substructure so that
neither excessive stresses are induced in the superstructure due to end restraint of the substructure
and adjacent soil, nor failure occurs in the piles due to the lateral cyclic demand combined with
axial loads imposed by the built-in superstructure. This balanced design method requires extensive
and comprehensive investigation to capture the exact behavior of the critical parameters affecting
the bridge response. Furthermore, the response of the piles under prescribed loading conditions
must be carefully addressed to set the safe length of IABs.
3
1.3 Objective of the Study
The objective of the current study is twofold; the first part involves predicting the parameters
affecting bridge behavior. These parameters include the potential loading and boundary conditions
that govern the bridge response. This entails calibrating a three-dimensional finite element based
on numerical models with an experimentally tested bridge. Based on the outcomes of the
calibration process, a parametric study is presented which investigates the effect of various bridge
parameters on bridge critical response. The second part addresses HP-pile buckling by developing
a detailed three-dimensional finite element model to investigate displacement capacities of IAB.
Maximum length of IABs is estimated based on the displacement capacities of HP piles. To that
end, the following tasks have been performed:
1- Reviewing the available analytical procedures to simulate IABs
2- Calibrating the bridge response using three-dimensional finite element models against
experimentally monitored data.
3- Conducting a parametric study to examine the effect of various bridge parameters and
boundary conditions on the critical response.
4- Conducting a pile buckling analysis to predict the displacement capacities for HP sections
in IABs which are then used in estimating maximum length of IAB.
4
1.4 Structure of the Study
This dissertation is structured as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction:
This chapter provide an overview of integral abutment bridges, their advantages and their
associated problems.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter surveys the available studies conducted on monitoring, modelling, and assumptions
regarding soil structure interaction and finite element modelling techniques.
Chapter 3: Soil-structure Interaction
This chapter present soil-structure interaction for IABs. This includes:
- Nonlinear soil- pile interaction (p-y method).
- Nonlinear soil-abutment interaction (lateral earth pressure).
Chapter 4: Calibration of the numerical model
This chapter involves three-dimensional finite element modelling of IAB using the commercial
package Abaqus. The calculated results are compared to the monitored data and the most
representative loading and boundary conditions are obtained.
Chapter 5: Parametric Study:
In this chapter, a parametric study is conducted to study the effect of the bridge geometric and
boundary conditions on the design criteria of IABs. These parameters include:
5
- Bridge length.
- Pile type and orientation.
- Soil type and stiffness around the pile.
Chapter 6: Pile buckling analysis of HP piles in Integral Abutment Bridges:
This chapter incorporates three-dimensional finite element models for HP piles embedded
in soil medium and subjected to combined axial load and lateral cyclic displacement. The
study aims at predicting displacement capacities of HP sections to set the maximum
length limits of IABs.
References
Appendices
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Research on integral abutment bridges dates to the past three decades when early attempts were
begun to set rational analysis and design methods for this type of structure (Abendroth and
Greimann, 1989). Since then, successive studies have followed to obtain more insight about their
complex behavior and to establish guidelines for designing and constructing them. Research is
basically focused on four major approaches:
1. Field monitoring of newly constructed or in-service bridges.
2. Finite element simulations for full or partial bridge elements.
3. Parametric investigation.
4. Displacement capacity of the HP piles supporting abutments.
In this chapter, a survey is presented to review the available work conducted considering these
four approaches. A historical sequence will be considered.
7
2.2 Field Monitoring
Field monitoring programs of integral abutment bridges were generally launched in early 1990s.
Studies comprised of instrumenting various locations in bridge superstructure and/or substructure
elements. The bridge monitoring process is intended to help understand the behavior of full-scale
bridges and to calibrate simulated numerical models. Major efforts focused on the soil-pile and
soil-abutment interaction due to cyclic thermal variations. Monitoring periods ranged from short
period programs to comprehensive long-term projects. Girton et al. (1991) monitored two bridges
in Iowa to verify available design procedures for piles. The first one was a 324.5 ft. long,
prestressed girder skewed bridge, having an angle of 45o skew. The second one was a 320 ft. long
composite bridge, with a 30o skew angle. The monitoring period spanned over two years, from
January 1987 to February 1989. Measurements included bridge temperature, bridge displacements,
pile strains, and coefficient of thermal expansion which were based on concrete core samples.
Simplified analytical models for the bridge and the piles were also presented and compared to the
experimental data.
Lawver et al. (2000) conducted a field experimental program for an IAB in Minnesota. The bridge
was 216.6 ft. long and composed of three-span prestressed girders supported by six HP 12x53 piles
on each side, oriented along the weak axis. The bridge was monitored for seven years to measure
the horizontal movement and rotation of the abutment, abutment pile strain, earth pressure behind
abutments, prestressed girders strains, deck strains, and girder displacements. Weather conditions
like air temperature and solar radiations were also recorded. The study incorporated two live load
tests of the bridge to understand the performance of the bridge under live load effects. It was
8
revealed that the bridge builds up an inward abutment movement over time which results in a
continued overall shortening of the bridge.
Abendroth and Greimann (2005) conducted a field instrumentation program for two bridges in the
state of Iowa. The measurements included longitudinal and lateral displacement of the abutment,
abutment rotation, and pile and girder strain, in addition to ambient temperature.
Kim and Laman (2012) monitored four integral abutment bridges in central Pennsylvania. Bridges
selected were short to medium in length. The instrumentation plan started in 2002 and continued
for 7 years. Measurements included abutment displacement, abutment backfill pressure, abutment
rotation, girder rotation, girder bending moment, girder axial force, pile bending moment, pile
axial force, and strain in approach slab. All responses were reported with and without traffic
loading. The study revealed that traffic loading has insignificant effects on all bridge responses
as shown Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Abutment displacement before and after traffic opening (Kim and Laman, 2012)
9
Frosch et al. (2004, 2011) conducted a comprehensive program to study the behavior of IABs in
early 2000s. Study incorporated field monitoring and analytical study for three bridges in Indiana.
These bridges were as follows: bridge I-65 having a total length of (152 ft.), bridge SR-18 having
a total length of (367 ft.), and bridge US-231 with a total length of (221 ft.). Dimensions and details
of the bridges is tabulated in Table 2.1. Bridges were highly instrumented to measure multiple
responses including abutment displacement, abutment rotation, earth pressure behind abutment,
and transverse abutment movement. A unique feature in the instrumentation in this program is that
in bridge SR-18, pile curvature had been measured, which later led to predict lateral deflection
along pile depth. This work has never been reported in any of the monitoring programs ever
performed. Moreover, it was a very significant step towards understanding the behavior of piles in
the IABs, as it provides an insight about how the pile responds to the bridge thermal movement.
For this feature, and because of the availability of bridge plans, this bride (SR18) has been
considered for the calibration process in this dissertation.
TABLE 2.1 BRIGE DETAILS MONITORED BY Frosch et al. (2004, 2011)
Southbound I-65 SR-18 US-232

Total Length (ft.) 152 367 221
Skew Angle (Deg.) 25 8 33.8
Girder Type W36x150 Prestressed Concrete Prestressed Concrete
Pile Type HP12x53 / CFT 14” CFT 14” CFT 14”
Date Instrumented Summer 2000 Summer 2003 Fall 2006
10
Frosch et al. (2011) reported that there is a continuing inward shortening of the IAB, which was
noted at bridge SR-18 as shown in Figure 2.2. This was observed in the monitoring process which
extended for seven years. Lawver et al. (2000) reported the same response in a monitored bridge
in Minnesota. However, none of the investigators fully justified this behavior. Lawver et al. (2000)
attributed it to soil compaction behind the abutment and build-up of debris at the end joints. Frosch
et al. (2011) attributed it to the accumulated concrete shrinkage strain over time. Frosch et al.
(2011) had also conducted field experimental tests on a single-span, quarter-scale IA bridge to
investigate the effect of high skew angle of IAB.
11
Figure 2.2 Ratcheting phenomenon for the IAB (Frosch et al., 2011)
12
2.3 Finite Element Modelling
Researchers have employed several techniques to model the IAB structural elements. In general,
the finite element (FE) method in 2D frame and three-dimensional space frame has been widely
used. A 2D FE model is commonly employed because of its simplicity and computational time
savings. It has been used by Diclelei and Albhaisi (2003); Fennema et al. (2005); Civjan et al
(2007); Pugasap et al. (2009); and Kim and Laman (2010). The 2D methodology involves selecting
a tributary area of the bridge deck and the abutment equal to the spacing between girders (Dicleli
and Albhaisi, 2003). Three-dimensional space frame modelling has also been implemented by
many researchers: Faraji et al. (2001); Pugasap et al. (2009); Frosch et al. (2011), Albhaisi (2012)
and Quinn and Civjan (2016). Both methods are economic in terms of time, however, the three-
dimensional method is more accurate than 2D because it provides information about response in
the transverse direction.
Modelling of IAB parts generally involves simple one-dimensional or two-dimensional finite
elements. Girders, transverse diaphragms, and piles are typically modelled using beam/frame
elements. Deck slab and abutments are modeled using shell elements. Rigid links sometimes are
used between the girders and the slab to maintain full composite action between them. Fennema
et al. (2005) used STAAD pro to create a 2D and three-dimensional finite element frame models
for a three-span IAB in Pennsylvania. In the 2D frame model, the prestressed girders and the deck
slab were transformed into an equivalent beam element based on the properties of the girders and
slab. The abutments and piers are transformed into beam elements as well. Steel HP piles were
lumped into a single pile composed of multiple beam elements. In the three-dimensional frame
model, the girders, intermediate diaphragms, and the piles were modelled as beam elements. The
deck, abutments and approach slab were modelled using shell elements. Faraji et al. (2001); Huang
13
et al. (2005) and Albhaisi (2012) likewise used the same modelling techniques to represent girders,
deck, abutments and piles.
Several researchers have implemented three-dimensional finite element solid elements to model
the IABs. Although this method is rather expensive in terms of the model building and solving
time, it proved to be more accurate than the conventional 2D or three-dimensional space frame FE
models because it tracks the stress variation within elements. Khodair et al. (2004) built a FE model
of the substructure of an IAB in New Jersey using three-dimensional solid elements in the
commercial software ABAQUS. The piles and the surrounding soil were modelled as eight-node
linear brick solid elements (C3D8R). A surface-to-surface contact algorithm is used to simulate
the contact between the soil and the piles. The elastic-perfectly plastic material model is assumed
for the steel. The concrete material is assumed as elasto-plastic model while Morh-Coloumb failure
criterion is used for the soil.
Khasawneh (2014) has also used three-dimensional solid elements to model the IAB. The
superstructure of the bridge is modelled as a 4-node thermally coupled tetrahedral element with
coupled thermal/mechanical elastic material. Soil is modelled as a 4-node tetrahedral element with
elastoplastic material model. A user-defined subroutine is developed for the soil model and
calibrated to laboratory testing.
2.4 Soil Modelling Methods
The soil-structure interaction is the most challenging part in the analysis and design of any
structure adjacent to the soil. Uncertainties arise from the complex nature of soil behavior under
different loading conditions. The soil-structure interaction in IABs is a problem of laterally loaded
piles and abutment-backfill interaction. The p-y curve method is the most widely used procedure
14
to model the interaction between the piles and the surrounding soil. It correlates the lateral pressure
of the soil on the pile and the corresponding pile lateral displacement. The p-y curve method was
first introduced by Terzaghi (1952) to help model the soil-structure interaction as a linear soil
modulus along the pile depth. Successive studies tried to develop empirical formulas based on
calibrating the soil response with full-scale experimental tests. Abutment-backfill interaction is a
lateral earth pressure problem like the retaining wall case but with relative movement of the
abutments relative to the wall. Expansion and contraction of the IAB induce passive and active
earth pressure to the abutments. Modelling of the abutment-backfill interaction involves pressure-
displacement curves like p-y curves of the piles. Chapter 3 will present both soil-pile and soil-
abutment interaction procedures in detail.
Dicleli and Albhaisi (2003, 2004) used elasto-plastic linear soil springs around the piles to build
2D FE models which were employed to estimate the maximum length of IABs in sand and clay.
The slope of the elastic linear part of the spring behavior is represented by initial soil modulus,
while the plastic part is defined as the ultimate soil resistance.
Faraji et al. (2001) used nonlinear soil springs to model the backfill soil behind the abutment of
IAB and around the piles. For the backfill soil, they implemented the National Cooperative
Highways Research Program (NCHRP, 1991) design curves to build the force-deflection response
of the nonlinear springs. The American Petroleum Institute (API, 1993) procedure was used by the
researchers to build the p-y curves for the springs representing the soil around the pile.
Frosch et al. (2004) used linear soil springs in two perpendicular dimensions to model the soil
around the pile. The models were built using SAP2000 to calibrate monitored piles of IABs.
Frosch et al. (2011) represented the backfill soil behind abutments as nonlinear springs utilizing
15
Duncan and Mokwa’s (2001) method for idealizing the spring behavior. Pile springs were also
considered linear.
Modelling by the three-dimensional finite element method has also been employed in the soil-
structure interaction problem. The soil is simulated as two- or three-dimensional finite elements.
Isoparametric quadrilateral elements or triangular elements are used in the case of two-dimensional
plane stress or strain, and hexahedral (often called brick elements) or tetrahedral elements or a
combination of both is used in the case of three-dimensional analysis. The interface between the
soil and the pile is represented by thin or zero thickness interface elements (Desai et al., 1984)
which help in providing friction and slippage between the two surfaces in the case of compression
and deboning in the case of tension. The material behavior of the soil and the interface is the most
challenging and controversial part in the modelling process because no consensus exists about
their most satisfactory representation. Different types of soil have different material behaviors and
they are highly dependent on the structure and composition of the soil, type of loading, and water
condition. Different models have been presented in the literature to represent various types of soil.
Muqtadir and Desai (1986) used a nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model combined
with an elastic-plastic soil behavior in a pile-group analysis problem. The soil and pile were
idealized as 8-noded hexahedral elements and the interface elements between the soil and the piles
are assumed as 8-noded thin-layer element with normal and shear stiffness constitutive model.
Trochanis (1988) used ABAQUS software to model soil and pile as a solid 27-node quadratic
element, and a 9-node thin-layer interface element was used to model the surface between the pile
and soil. A modified Drucker-Prager nonlinear model was used in the model to represent the soil.
Other investigators who also discretized the soil mass as a continuum or solid elements include:
Brown and Shie (1990); Bhowmik (1992); Khohair (2004) and khasawneh (2014).
16
2.5 Parametric Studies
Parametric studies have been conducted by many researchers to investigate the effects of various
geometric and boundary conditions on the behavior of IA bridges. Huang et al. (2004) performed
a parametric study for a concrete IA bridge using three-dimensional finite element model utilizing
ANSYS software. They studied five variables derived from the base case (monitored bridge) which
was considered as well in the parametric study. The five variables were: abutment- pile cap
connection; pile type, size and orientation; girder dimensions; wing wall configuration; and soil
surrounding piles. The study indicated a necessity to balance the stresses between the piles and
superstructure in the case of long spans and stiff soil conditions. It also showed that the hinged
connection at the pile-abutment interface would reduce the stresses in girder by 30% compared to
the fixed connection. Faraji et al. (2001) studied the effect of the level of compaction of the soil
behind the abutment and around the piles. A three-dimensional FE model was built for a short-
span bridge in Massachusetts using software GTSTRUDL. They found that the level of
compaction of the backfill behind the abutment has a significant impact on the bridge response in
general, particularly on the axial forces and moments generated in the deck. Albhaisi et al. (2012)
investigated the effect of substructure stiffness on the abutment and pile displacement and on
girder and deck stresses by investigating four soil types surrounding the piles. Two in-service IABs
were modified to be applicable to the parametric study. The researchers found that the soil stiffness
has an influential part in governing bridge response under thermal loading. Frosch et al. (2011)
conducted a parametric investigation to examine the effect of length and skew of the IAB and their
influence on the pile lateral displacement demand. The investigators also studied the effect of other
parameters on the bridge response including: span length, shrinkage models, stiffness of the soil,
and pile size and orientation. The study showed that the ultimate lateral displacement exerted on
17
piles is 0.24 in. from 200 ft. bridge; 1.28 in. from 600 ft. bridge; and 2.34 in. from 1000 ft. bridge.
The study also revealed that if the shrinkage stain is added to the temperature strain, the lateral
displacement demand will be overpredicted by a constant factor of 0.6.
2.6 Stability Requirements and Fatigue
Integral abutment bridges are subjected to cyclic lateral movement resulting from seasonal and
daily temperature fluctuations. This lateral movement is translated to the supporting piles which
must be flexible enough to sustain such loading. On the other hand, piles should meet stability
requirements for global and local buckling resulting from the weight of the bridge combined with
the lateral cyclic demand from thermal fluctuations. Global instability is not considered in
designing the piles of IABs because piles are embedded in soil which provides a restraining effect
against global buckling. However, the flanges and web of the HP sections are vulnerable to local
buckling due to lateral cyclic expansion and contraction along the bridge. AISC LRFD 2005 set
limits for flange and web width-to-thickness ratios to control local buckling, and compact sections
are classified as the sections that can develop a full plastic moment capacity before buckling is
induced. Piles in IABs are also prone to fatigue due to repetitive movement of the bridge. Dicleli
and Albhaisi (2003, 2004) initiated an approach to estimate the maximum length of IABs based
on low-cycle fatigue of steel piles under thermal effects. They implemented a fatigue damage
model for daily/weakly and annual temperature variations to estimate the limiting strain for fatigue
failure based on a 75-year bridge life. The strain is then used to estimate the maximum lateral
displacement that the piles can sustain and is used to estimate the maximum length of the IABs
assuming the bridge expansion follows a basic thermal linear expansion equation. Table 2.2
presents the maximum length limits of IABs found for piles embedded in clay.
18
TABLE 2.2 MAXIMUM LENGTH LIMITS FOR STEEL AND CONCRETE IABS IN CLAY
(Dicleli and Albhaisi, 2003)
Concrete bridge maximum length (m) Steel bridge maximum length (m)
Pile Size Moderate Cold Moderate climate Cold
climate climate climate
HP310×125 320 265 220 145
HP310×110 300 250 205 135
HP250×85 240 195 160 110
HP200×63 180 150 125 80
2.7 Bridge Geometric Limitations
The geometric limitations of IABs have been the subject of research and controversy among
departments of transportation for decades. The problem encompasses many parameters like
maximum abutment height, pile types, pile size and orientation, allowable skew angle of the
bridge, degree of compaction of the backfill soil and the approach slab-abutment connection.
Greimann, et al. (1984) reported in a survey that construction details for IABs vary widely from
state to state. Vermont Agency of Transportation (Vtrans) proposed a simplified design method
for the IABs, based on experience of both structural and geotechnical engineers. The agency
suggested the following criteria that must be met for the method to be applicable:
- The bridge skew angle should be less than 20 degrees
- The bridge should have straight beams, whether it is a straight or curved bridge. The beams
should be parallel to each other.
- The piles supporting the abutments should be H-section of grade (50) steel.
- The flange of the H-piles should be greater than or equal to 10 inches.
19
- Abutments and piers should be parallel to each other.
- Abutment height should not exceed 13 ft. to reduce earth pressure against it.
- The maximum total bridge length from centerlines of abutments must be as follows:
o 395 ft. for steel bridges.
o 695 ft. for concrete bridges.
- Individual span lengths should not exceed 145 ft.
- Wing walls should be built monolithically with abutments with a length of 10 ft. or less.
The Vtrans guidelines stated that beyond the above requirements, a more detailed analysis is
required.
Kunin and Allampalli (2000) conducted a survey to obtain states’ departments of transportation
practices in design and construction of IABs. The study incorporated 39 states and agencies in the
United States and Canada. The researchers highlighted many facts about geometric limitations and
construction practices implemented. The maximum length was found ranged from 25-140 m for
steel bridges, 18 – 244 m for precast concrete bridges, and 48.8-244 m for cast-in-place concrete
girder bridges. The maximum allowable skew angle for the IABs was 45 degrees but many state
departments do not impose a limit on skew angle. Abutment height limits range from 0.9-4.3 m.
Table 2.3 summarizes this survey.
20
TABLE 2.3 SUMMARY OF IAB RESPONSES (ADAPTED FROM KUNIN AND
ALLAMPALI, 2000)
Longest built
Total built First built Last built
Steel Girder CIP Concrete CIP Concrete
Girder Girder
318.4 maximum 358.4 maximum 290.4 maximum
Over 9773 1905 1996
24.4 minimum 15.9 minimum 29.3 minimum
Frosch et al., 2004 conducted a series of experimental tests on steel HP-piles to predict the
maximum lateral displacement that the steel and CFT piles could sustain without buckling. Six
different HP-sections and three concrete-filled steel tube piles (CFT) were tested for combined
low-cycle large amplitude lateral displacement and maximum axial load permitted by AASHTO
standard specifications. The axial stress limit by AASHTO specifications is 25% of steel yield
strength in case of steel sections while it is 25% of steel yield strength + 40% of concrete
compressive strength for concrete-filled steel tube. Displacement capacities of HP sections
predicted by the researchers are reported in Table 2.4. These limiting displacements were used to
estimate the maximum length of IABs based on a linear thermal expansion equation. The
maximum length of IABs is estimated to be 500 ft.
21
TABLE 2.4 BUCKLING DISPLACEMENT CAPACITIES OF HP SECTIONS (Frosch et al.,
2004)
Specimen Orientation Axial Load (kips) Buckling capacity (in)

HP8x36 Weak 95.4 2.0
HP8x36 Strong 95.4 1.5
HP8x36 45o 95.4 1.5
HP8x36 Weak 191 2.25
HP10x42 Weak 112 1.25
HP12x53 Weak 140 1.25
CFT8 - 129 1.5
CFT8 - 173 1.5
CFT10 - 204 1.75
Azizinamini et al. (2015) discussed the effect of the flexibility in the pile-head connection. They
showed that a hinge connection can improve the displacement capacity of the piles by four times
more than the fixed connection. They demonstrated that through the stiffness and bending moment
values developed in the pile, which were less in case of a pinned connection. They also indicated
that strong axis orientation of the pile would increase the displacement capacity by 70% compared
to weak axis orientation. In their study, they found that the maximum principle plastic strain for a
modelled prestressed pile in ABAQUS is much higher in the case of a fixed connection than in the
case of a pin connection for the same lateral displacement at the pile head.
22
3. SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
3.1 Introduction
The soil-structure interaction is the most challenging part in the analysis and design of any
structure in contact with soil because of the uncertainties related to soil state response under
various loading. The complexity of the soil-structure interaction emerges from the nature of soil
as a nonhomogeneous material, and its behavior and properties differ from one spot to another
even on the same area. However, it is important to identify the right soil type and properties which
closely reflect the real behavior in the field. The IABs, unlike other bridge types, are in a semi-
static state and have a strong and pertinent relation to the supporting soil. IABs are subjected to
daily and seasonal movements due to thermal expansion and contraction, and these movements
are converted into lateral forces on the supporting substructure elements. Basically, the soil-
structure interaction in IABs is of two categories: pile-soil interaction and abutment-soil
interaction. This chapter will focus on the theoretical approach for modelling both types of
interactions.
23
3.2 Soil-Pile Interaction
Soil-pile interaction studies have evolved in the middle of the last century in response to the need
for understanding the behavior of offshore platforms under wind, wave and other lateral and axial
loads (Reese and Impe, 2011; Desai and Zaman, 2014). The most common and widely used method
for modelling soil-pile response is the p-y method. This method represents the soil pressure at any
point along pile depth versus the corresponding lateral displacement in a form of nonlinear springs.
A set of p-y curves or springs for each pile is required to represent the effect of the soil on the pile
under various loadings, Fig (3.1). These curves are functions of soil type and properties, water
level, and loading pattern. Most departments of transportation and engineering bureaus depend on
the p-y method due to main two reasons: First, it is simple, wherein the equations are empirical
and based only on soil properties and constants and does not require complex soil models like the
three-dimensional FE method. Second: it is highly accurate and thought to best represent the real
soil behavior, because it is calibrated using full-scale tested models. For these two reasons, and
because of the lack of validation for other modelling techniques, it was selected as the focus of
the current study.
Reese and Imple (2001) presented a detailed description on how to compute the p-y curves for
various soil types and loading conditions.
24
Figure 3.1 Set of p-y curves along the pile depth (Reese and Imple, 2001)
3.2.1 p-y Curves
In general, three soil types are commonly considered in soil mechanics books: clay, sand, and silt.
In the following sections, methods for computing p-y curves for these three soil types will be
presented with various loading conditions.
3.2.1.1 p-y Method for Clay
3.2.1.1.1 Soft Clay Having Free Water: Static Loading Case
Matlock (1970) suggested an equation for computing the p-y curves for soft clay as follows:
25
1
p  y 3
 0.5   3.1
pult  y50 
Where:
  ' J  
 3  z  z  cu b 
pult  min  cu b   3.2
 9cu b 
 
average effective unit weight from ground surface to the point of spring under consideration.
z: depth from the ground surface to the point of spring under consideration.
cu: shear strength of the soil at depth of z.
J: A factor equals to 0.5 in case of soft clay and 0.25 in case of medium clay.
b: Pile width.
y50  2.5 50b
50: The strain that corresponds to 50% the maximum principal stress difference. Table 3.1 shows
typical values for 50. Fig. 3.2 depicts the typical p-y curve for soft clay. The value of the pressure
remains constant after y = 8y50.
26
TABLE 3.1 TYPICAL VALUES OF 50 FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAY (Peck et
al., 1974)
Consistency of Clay Average values for shear strength (kPa) 50
Soft <48 0.02
Medium 48-96 0.01
Stiff 96-192 0.005
Figure 3.2 Schematic representation of p-y curves for soft clay with free water under static load
case (Matlock, 1970)
27
3.2.1.1.2 Soft Clay Having Free Water: Cyclic Loading Case
The computation of the p-y curve in cyclic loading case is similar to the static loading case for
values of p less than 0.72pult . A transition depth 𝑧 is computed by solving the two equations in
(3.2) simultaneously. In the case where the unit weight and shear strength are constant, zr can be
calculated from the following equation:
6cu b
zr  3.3
  ' b  Jcu 
If the spring has a depth equal to or greater than z r, p will have a constant value of 0.72𝑝 for all
y values beyond 3𝑦 . For depths smaller than zr, the value of p decreases from 0.72𝑝 at y=3𝑦
to the value in eq. (3.4) at y=15𝑦 . Fig (3.3) shows the procedure graphically.
p  z 
 0.72   3.4
pu  zr 
28
Figure 3.3 P-y curve for soft clay with free water under cyclic loading (Matlock, 1970)
3.2.1.1.3 Stiff Clay Having Free Water: Static Loading Case
Reese et al. (1975) presented a method for predicting the p-y curve for stiff clay. The method
involves computing the ultimate value of the soil resistance (force per unit length) as the minimum
of the following two equations. Figure 3.4 explains the procedure:
pct  2ca b   ' bz  2.83ca z 3.5
pcd  11cu b 3.6
Where:
𝑐 ∶ average undrained shear strength over the depth z.
𝑐𝑢: undrained shear strength at depth z.
': soil submerged unit weight.
29
b: pile diameter.
Figure 3.4 p-y method for stiff clay under static loading in the presence of free water
The p-y curve is composed of several portions. The first straight line portion is computed from the
following equation:
p   ks z  y 3.7
Where ks obtained from Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2 TYPICAL VALUES OF 𝑘
undrained shear strength of the soil (kPa)
50-100 100-200 300-400
kpys (static) MN/m3 135 270 540
kpyc (cyclic) MN/m3 55 110 540
30
The second portion of the p-y curve (first parabolic portion) is computed from the following
equation (the portion between eq. 3.7 and the point of y=A sy50:
0.5
 y 
p  0.5 pc   3.8
 y50 
Where:
Pc is computed as the smaller from eq. (3.5) or eq. (3.6)
y50=50b, where 50 is obtained from laboratory tests or from Table 3.3.
TABLE 3.3 TYPICAL VALUES OF 50 FOR OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY (Skempton,

1951)
Consistency of Clay Average values for shear strength (kPa) 50
Soft 50-100 0.007
Medium 100-200 0.005
Stiff 300-400 0.004
The second parabolic portion of the p-y curve is computed from to the following equation which
defines the part of p-y curve bounded by y=𝐴 𝑦 to y=6𝐴 𝑦 :
0.5 1.25
 y   y  As y50 
p  0.5 pc    0.055 pc   3.9
 y50   As y50 
Where As could be found from the Figure 3.5.
31
Figure 3.5 Graphical values of A (subscripts refer to static and cyclic loading). (Reese and Imple,
2001)
The next straight line in the p-y curve is constructed according the following equation:
0.0625
p  0.5 pc (6 As )0.5  0.411 pc  pc  y  6 As y50  3.10
y50
Which defines the portion of the portion of the p-y curve between y=6A sy50 and y=18Asy50.
The final straight line can be found from the following two equations:
p  0.5 pc  6 As   0.411 pc  0.75 pc As

0.5
3.11

p  pc 1.225 As  0.75 As  0.411  3.12
32
And defines the p-y curve from point of y=18𝐴 𝑦 thereafter.
3.2.1.1.4 Stiff Clay in the Presence of Free Water: Cyclic Loading
For cyclic loading, the procedure is like that of static loading except that the portion of the
parabolic curve (Eq. 3.8) is defined as follows:
 y  0.45 y p
2.5

p  Ac pc 1   3.13
 0.45 y p 
 
Where 𝐴 can be found from Figure 3.5. Eq. 3.13 represents the portion of the curve bounded the
intersection of Eq. 3.7 and y=0.6𝑦 , where 𝑦 is defined as follows:
y p  4.1Ac y50 3.14
The straight line of the curve defined by the limits y=0.6𝑦 and y=1.8𝑦 is computed from the
following equation:
0.085
p  0.936 Ac pc  pc  y  0.6 y p  3.15
y50
The last part straight line from point of y= 1.8𝑦 thereafter is computed from the following
equation:
0.102
p  0.936 Ac pc  pc y p 3.16
y50
Figure 3.6 illustrates the procedure for the cyclic loading.
33
Figure 3.6 p-y method for stiff clay under cyclic loading in the presence of free water (Reese et
al. 1975)
3.2.1.1.5 Stiff Clay with no Free Water: Static Loading
Welch and Reese (1972) developed a method for formulating p-y curves for stiff clay with no free
water based on field tests in Houston, TX. The method is the same for soft clay with free water
except the equation describing the p-y curve (equation 3.1) is defined as follows:
0.25
p  y 
 0.5   3.17
pu  y50 
For y values beyond 16𝑦 , p is equal to pult. Figure 3.7 illustrates the procedure.
34
Figure 3.7 p-y method for stiff clay under static loading with no free water (Welch and Reese,
1972)
3.2.1.1.6 Stiff Clay with no Free Water: Cyclic Loading
The procedure is like the case of static load in Sec. 3.3.1.5, but a new value of y for each cycle is
determined from the following equation:
yc  ys  y50 C log N 3.18
Where:
4
 p 
C  9.6   3.19
 pult 
𝑦 : Deflection under N-cycles of load
𝑦 : Deflection under static loading
N: Number of cycle to which curve is desired.
35
Figure 3.8 illustrates the method of computing p-y curves for stiff clay under cyclic loading with
no free water.
Figure 3.8 p-y curves for stiff clay with no free water under cyclic loading case (Reese and Imple,
2001)
3.2.1.2 p-y Curves for Sand
Reese et al. (1974) performed a series of tests at Mustang Island to develop p-y curves for sand.
The procedure incorporates three segments: one parabolic part and two straight line segments. The
method starts by computing pult and pm from the following equations:
pult  As ps 3.20
pult  Ac ps 3.21
The corrspoding y intercept (x-axis herein) is computed as follows :
36
3b
yu  3.22
80
pm  Bs ps 3.23
pm  Bc ps 3.24
And the corrspoding y intercept:
b
ym  3.25
60
The parameters As , Ac , B s and B c can be found from Fig 3.9 and Fig 3.10. The ultimate soil
pressure ps per unit length of the pile is computed from the following two equations:
 k z tan  sin  tan  

pst   z  o   b  z tan  tan    ko z tan   tan  sin   tan    kab 
 tan      cos  tan      
3.26
psd  kab z  tan8   1  kob z tan  tan 4  3.27
The above two equations are solved simultaneously to estimate the depth yt. Above this depth
Eq. 3.24 is used and below it Eq. 3.25 is implemented.
The first segment of the p-y curve is constructed from the following equation:
p   k py z  y 3.28
Where 𝑘 can be obtained from Table 3.4 or Table 3.5
37
Figure 3.9 Coefficients of As and Ac
Figure 3.10 Nondimensional soil resistance coefficients with depth
38
TABLE 3.4 REPRESENTATIVE VALUS FOR 𝑘 FOR SAND BELOW WATER TABLE
(SUBMERGED)
Soil relative density Loose Medium Dense
kpy (MN/m3) 5.4 16.3 34
TABLE 3.5 REPRESENTATIVE VALUES FOR 𝑘 FOR SAND ABOVE WATER TABLE
Soil relative density Loose Medium Dense
kpy (MN/m3) 6.8 24.4 61
The parabolic part of the curve between point k and m is computed from the following equation:
p  Cy1/n 3.29
Where:
pm
n 3.30
mym
pm
C 3.31
ym1/ n
The slope of the line between point m and u is computed from the following equation:
pu  pm
m 3.32
yu  ym
39
Point k (the point of intersection of the first segment and the middle one) is computed based on
the following formula:
n
 C  n 1
yk   3.33
 k py z 
 
Figure 3.11 illustrates the procedure for calculating p-y curve for sand
Figure 3.11 Computation of p-y curve for sand (Reese et al., 1974)
40
3.2.1.3 p-y Curves for Soil Having Cohesion and Angle of Friction
There are no explicit recommendations for creating p-y curves for soils having both cohesion and
angle of internal friction. However, a procedure suggested by Reese and Impe (2001), is presented
herein for the sake of completeness. It assumes the stress-strain curve for the c- soil closely
matches that for the cohesionless soil. The procedure is as follows:
1- Establish yu as compute Pult from the following two equations for static and cyclic loading,
respectively:
pult  As pult  pultc 3.34
pult  Ac pult  pultc 3.35
And the corresponding y intercept:
3b
yu  3.36
80
2- Compute pm from the following two equations:
pm  Bs ps 3.37
pm  Bc ps 3.38
And the corrspoding y intercept:
b
ym  3.39
60
The parameters As , Ac , B s and B c can be found from Fig 3.9 and Fig 3.10 as in the case of
cohesionless soil. The ultimate soil pressure ps is computed from equations 3.26 and 3.27.
41
The parameter A can be obtained from Fig. 3.9 and the friction part of Eq. 3.33 can be found
from the following two equations (smaller governs):
 K tan  sin  tan  

pult   z  o   b  z tan  tan    3.40
 tan      cos  tan      
pult  K a b z  tan8   1  Kob z tan  tan 4  3.41
The cohesion part of the equation pultc is computed from the following two equations:
 ' J 
pultc   3  z  z c b 3.42
 c b 
pultc  9 c b 3.43
The first segment of the curve is constructed according the following equation:
p   k py z  y 3.44
Where 𝑘 is obtained from Eq. 3.45 and z is the depth at which the p-y curve is desired.
k py  kc  k 3.45
The coefficients kc and k can be estimated using Fig. 3.12 and 3.13.
The parabolic part of the curve between point k and m is computed from the following equation:
p  Cy1/n 3.46
Where:
pm
n 3.47
mym
42
pm
C 3.48
ym1/ n
The slope of the line between point m and u is computed from the following equation:
pu  pm
m 3.49
yu  ym
Figure 3.12 coefficient Kc
43
Figure 3.13 coefficient K
Point k (the point of intersection of the first segment and the middle on) is computed based on the
following formula:
n / n 1
C
yk    3.50
 kz 
Figure 3.14 illustrates the procedure for calculating p-y curve for cohesionless soil.
44
Figure 3.14 proposed p-y curve for c- soil (Reese and Impe, 2001)
3.2.2 Program LPILE
LPILE is a Window-based commercial software developed by professor Lymon Reese at the
University of Texas at Austin to solve the problem of a single pile subjected to combined
axial/bending moment and lateral load/displacement. Currently, LPILE is the most widely used
software among departments of transportation in the US to solve the problem of laterally loaded
piles. The program considers the theories presented in the previous sections in addition to other
recommendations for computing p-y curves by other organizations, such as API (1993). It
considers various pile sections, soil types and loading scenarios. It also quantifies lateral pile
deflection, bending moment, shear force, and soil pressure distribution along pile depth. This
program will be used for computing p-y curve of the soil spring for piles in the following chapters.
The nonlinear force-displacement data are obtained by converting the pressure of the p-y data into
45
lumped forces concentrated at nodes of the pile. The forces can be calculated by multiplying the
value of the pressure at a specific depth below ground surface by the average distance between
springs on the top and bottom of that depth for the center springs and half the distance in the edge
springs. A series of force-displacement data can be generated for the springs at various depths
along the pile, which are inputted into the ABAQUS program to represent the soil effect on the
IAB.
3.3 Abutment-Backfill Interaction
Integral Abutments experience lateral movement following bridge expansion and contraction. This
movement exerts passive pressure on the adjacent soil in the case of bridge expansion and active
pressure in the case of contraction. The horizontal soil pressure on the abutment is a function of
soil properties, friction between the soil and interfacing structure, shape of the structure, and depth
of the point below ground level.
The magnitude of lateral earth pressure on an abutment can be calculated from the following
equation:
p=zk 3.51
Where:
p: horizontal soil pressure,
: effective unit weight of the backfill,
z: depth of the point below ground level and
k: coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
46
The of lateral earth pressure coefficient (k) represents the ratio of the horizontal effective stress
to the vertical effective stress. The value of earth pressure coefficient depends of the direction of
movement of the wall/abutment relative to the soil. Three scenarios have been reported in soil
mechanics references:
- At-rest case
The soil in this case is in a state of equilibrium, in which the soil does not experience
compression or expansion. The earth pressure coefficient is referred to as at-rest pressure
coefficient (ko)
- Active case
If the confinement has been released due to movement of the retaining structure away from
the soil, an active case ensues, and the corresponding coefficient is referred to as active
earth pressure coefficient (ka). This case represents the lower bound value (minimum earth
pressure coefficient).
- Passive case
When the retaining structure or abutment moves towards the soil compressing its particles,
passive earth pressure arises, and the coefficient is referred to as the passive earth pressure
coefficient (kp). The passive case represents the upper bound case. (maximum earth
pressure coefficient). Figure 3.15 depicts the three cases of lateral earth pressure
mobilization.
Movement of the structure relative to the soil invokes shear stresses due to friction in the
interface, resulting in an inclined reaction at an angle () with the normal to the interface.
The value of () is a function of the soil properties and the material of the interfacing wall.
47
At-rest condition Active condition Passive condition
Figure 3.15 Lateral earth pressure cases
In IABs, passive earth pressure induces as the structure expands due to temperature rise in hot
season, applying compressive forces to the abutments. When the abutments move away from the
backfill during cold seasons, active earth pressure develops gradually until it reaches a constant
value. In general, the active earth pressure is relatively small compared to passive pressure and it
is typically neglected in the analysis of IABs (Albhaisi et al., 2012).
There are three main theories for computing the passive earth pressure: Coulomb theory (1776),
Rankine theory (1857), and log spiral theory (Terzaghi, 1943). Rankine theory underestimates the
value of earth pressure, while Coulomb theory overestimates the value of earth pressure for values
of (/) > 0.4 (Cole and Rollins 2006). Log spiral theory provides a more accurate prediction of
passive earth pressure than both Rankine and Coulomb theories for values of (/) > 0.4, where 
is the angle of internal friction of the soil (Duncan and Mokwa, 2001)
48
The main three earth pressure theories can only predict the maximum value of earth pressure;
however, they do not explain how that pressure develops with the displacement up to the maximum
value. There are a very limited number of studies that address the development of passive earth
pressure with the displacement of the wall. Clough and Duncan (1991) conducted a series of field
tests and developed finite element models to estimate the amount of displacement to achieve
maximum passive earth pressure. They also developed graphs for calculating earth pressure
coefficients versus normalized maximum wall displacement behind a retaining wall for loose and
dense sand, for both compacted and non-compacted backfill (Figure 3.16 and 3.17). These authors’
work has been adopted by the NCHRP (1991) manual for describing changes in the passive earth
pressure coefficient with wall top displacement. However, no clues exist on how to compute the
variation in earth pressure coefficient with displacement for various soil types or properties. Table
3.6 shows the normalized displacement of the wall with respect to the wall height for various soil
types.
TABLE 3.6 APPROXIMATE WALL MOVEMENT RRQUIRED TO REACH MAXIMUM

AND MINUMUM EARTH PRESSURE (Clough and Duncan, 1991)
Values of /H
Type of Backfill Soil Active Passive
Dense Sand 0.001 0.01
Medium-dense Sand 0.002 0.02
Loose Sand 0.004 0.04
Compacted Silt 0.002 0.02
Compacted lean clay 0.01 0.05
Compacted fat clay 0.01 0.05
49
Figure 3.16 Wall movement versus earth pressure for ideal conditions (Fang, 1991)
Figure 3.17 Wall movement versus earth pressure for compacted backfill (Fang, 1991)
50
In the current study, graphs developed by Clough and Duncan (1991) were utilized to compute the
force-displacement relationship for the abutment springs. Clough and Duncan had only depended
on Rankine earth pressure theory and three friction angles for soil in their graphs. As such, this
method is expanded herein to incorporate more friction angles and earth pressure theories. This
has been performed by digitizing the original curves and proportioning to the desired angle of
friction of the soil or to the log-spiral earth pressure theory as will be described in subsequent
chapters.
51
4. CALIBRATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL
4.1 Introduction
To examine the validity of the numerical model, a verification procedure was conducted by
creating a finite element model using ABAQUS with the same geometry and loading conditions
as the experimentally tested bridge. Bridge components were simulated using 3D solid elements
to best reflect the real behavior of a monitored bridge response under measured field temperatures.
Nonlinear p-y curves for the soil-pile and soil-abutment interactions were employed for the
calibration process, combined with several shrinkage models for the concrete deck and girders. A
separate pile model is created and calibrated with experimental data based on the lateral
displacement profile. Full bridge model is later established utilizing the outcomes of the pile
modelling and a calibration procedure is conducted based on the lateral abutment displacement.
The earth pressure response is also presented and compared.
52
4.2 Bridge Description
The integral abutment bridge located on SR-18 over the Mississenewa river in Indiana, USA was
used for calibration (Figure 4.1). This bridge has been previously instrumented and monitored for
seven years (Frosch et al., 2006; 2011). It was selected for the current study because of the long
monitoring period and availability of design plans. Moreover, its length is typical for bridge spans
over highways in the United States. The bridge has a total length of approximately 112 m (367 ft)
divided into five spans and has an 8° skew angle as shown in Figure 4.2. The bridge has CIP 200
mm (8 in) thick deck, supported by five 1.524 m (60 in) prestressed bulb T-beams (INDOT Design
Manual, 2010), spaced at 3.1 m (10 ft-2 in). The bridge is integrally built with two abutments
having 2.74 m (9 ft) height and 1 m (39 in) thickness and supported by 10 concrete filled tube piles
CFT 355 x 8 mm (CFT14 in x 0.312 in) in a single row. Typical section in the abutment is shown
in Figure 4.3. The average length of the piles is 6.3 m (20.8 ft) and 8.2 m (27 ft) under bent 1 and
bent 2, respectively. Instrumentation data of the bridge includes pile strains along pile depth,
abutment displacement, soil pressure behind abutment in addition to temperature variation along
monitoring period. Pile and abutment displacements were selected as an index for comparison with
their experimental counterparts.
53
Figure 4.1 SR-18 over Missessenewa River, IN (Lovell, 2010)
18.9 m 24.7 m 24.7 m 24.7 m 18.9 m

Bent 1 Bent 6
A
14.6 m
1.1 m 3.1 m 3.1 m 3.1 m 3.1 m 1.1 m
Section A-A
Figure 4.2 Plan and cross section of bridge SR-18 over Mississinewa River
54
Figure 4.3 Typical details of abutment of SR-18 (Lovell, 2010)
4.3 Finite Element Modelling
ABAQUS/CAE v14 was used to generate two comprehensive 3D FE models. The first model is a
separate pile of a previously monitored IAB and the second model is a full bridge model using the
same bridge from which the first model is derived. The pile model was built to calibrate the pile
displacement against the experimental data, eventually predicting the soil type that best matches
the field soil-pile experimental response. A full bridge model is based on pile model outcomes to
investigate the abutment hysteresis behavior.
55
Modelling of IAB behavior requires valid assumptions for the boundary conditions and loading
scenarios. Soil-structure interactions are the most challenging part of the modelling process. In
general, two principal procedures are available to model the soil-structure interaction: finite
element discretization and Winkler springs. Soil modelling as finite elements is a time-consuming
process, especially in large or 3D models, and it has multiple drawbacks including uncertainties
regarding elastoplastic soil parameters prediction and the inability to track soil behavior during
cyclic loading. The Winkler springs method, on the other hand, provides a very economical
alternative in terms of computational time for modelling soil effects on adjacent structures. More
importantly, the springs method has a wide range of calibration procedures against full-scale field
data, and as such it gains better reliability in modelling. Therefore, soil springs were adopted
throughout this study to model the soil-pile and soil-abutment interactions.
4.4 Modelling Soil-Pile Interaction
The most common and widely used method for modelling the soil-pile response in laterally loaded
piles is the p-y curve method. This method, as its name implies, represents the soil pressure per
unit length of the pile at any point along pile depth versus the corresponding lateral displacement
of that point. Nonlinear springs are attached to the nodes of the FE model at the locations of the
soil-pile interface. A set of p-y curves for the springs along the pile is required to represent the
effect of the soil on the pile under lateral loading. The p-y method is accredited by most
departments of transportation and engineering bureaus across the United States as a method for
analysis of laterally loaded piles (Kunin and Alampalli, 2000) due to main two reasons: First, it is
simple to implement; the equations are empirical and based only on soil properties and pile section
without complex procedures. Second, it is highly accurate and thought to best represent the real
56
soil response because it is calibrated against full-scale field tests (Matlock H., 1970; Reese et al.,
1975). For these two reasons, and because of the lack of validation procedures for other modelling
techniques, like 3D FE, the p-y curve method was incorporated into the current study. LPILE
v2015 (Ensoft, Inc) software, which adopts the p-y curve methodology, was used for quantifying
the nonlinear p-y curves for the soil around the piles. Pressure-displacement (p-y) data of the
springs is extracted from LPILE according the soil type, then converted into force-displacement
data by multiplying the pressure by the corresponding tributary length for each spring. The force-
displacement data for each spring along the pile depth are assigned to the FE model with nonlinear
elastic behavior. Each spring is modelled as a connector element in Abaqus with a corresponding
connector section for that depth. Two orthogonal springs are attached at each node in the pile to
account for the effect of movement in both perpendicular directions. Connector elements in
Abaqus have combined tension/compression behavior and are not able to model tension-only or
compression only behavior. In the case of laterally loaded piles, soil springs should compress
against the pile while the pile moves towards the soil; conversely, in the case of pile movement
away from soil, springs must release the pile to avoid applying tensile force at the pile, assuming
negligible soil tension. To overcome this inevitable precondition in Abaqus, the supposed
compression effect on the other side of the pile in the case of countermovement is treated as reverse
tension on the same spring. As such, one spring in each direction is sufficient to represent the soil
effect on the pile in one direction. Due to the high number of springs required to represent the soil
effect on the pile, the process of spring generation was automated in the FE model. A Python
scripting property available in Abaqus was adopted herein for this purpose. To simplify the
procedure of scripting and make it more efficient, the code was not written from scratch, but
instead extracted from the original companion script file in Abaqus (journal file) and
57
encapsulated within adequate loops to perform the intended operation of spring planting to the FE
model.
4.5 Modelling Soil-Abutment Interaction
Integral abutments experience lateral movement following bridge expansion and contraction. This
movement exerts passive pressure on the adjacent soil in the case of bridge expansion and active
pressure in the case of contraction. In general, the active earth pressure is relatively small compared
to the passive pressure and it is typically neglected in the analysis of IABs (Albhaisi et al., 2012).
The magnitude of lateral earth pressure on an abutment can be calculated from the following
equation:
p=zk 4.1
Where p: horizontal soil pressure, : effective unit weight of the backfill, z: depth of the point
below ground surface and k: earth pressure coefficient.
There are three main theories for explaining lateral earth pressure: Rankine, Coulomb, and
logarithmic spiral. Two earth pressure theories, Rankine and log spiral theory, were examined in
the current study to investigate their potential to represent the real field behavior. Coulomb theory
was excluded because it overestimates the value of lateral earth pressure (Cole and Rollins, 2006).
The main three earth pressure theories can only predict the maximum value of earth pressure; they
do not explain how pressure develops with displacement up to the maximum value. Very few
studies address the development of passive earth pressure with the displacement of the wall.
Clough and Duncan (1991) developed graphs for calculating earth pressure coefficients versus
58
normalized maximum wall displacement behind a retaining wall. This work was also adopted by
the NCHRP (1991) manual for prescribing the change of the passive earth pressure coefficient
with the wall top displacement. However, no indications exist on how to compute earth pressure
coefficient variation with displacement for various soil types or properties. As such, a modified
form of the Clough and Duncan method was considered to compute the force-displacement
relationship for the abutment springs. Figure 4.4 shows a digitized form of the graphs, wherein the
Rankine theory is used to compute the lateral earth pressure coefficient (k P) for a soil having
coefficient of internal friction ( =37o). Curves for other parameters (=35 and log-spiral) were
estimated by proportioning the values to the original curves.
8
Passive Earth Pressure Coef. (Kp)
2 Rankine f=35o(predicted)
Rankine f=37o(digitized)
Log-Spiral f=35o(predicted)
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
D/H
Figure 4.4 Clough and Duncan digitized curves
59
The passive resistance for a specific point in the force-displacement curve is computed by
multiplying the vertical stress  at a specified depth z by the lateral earth pressure coefficient (Kp)
obtained from the digitized curves in Figure 4.4 and then by the tributary area for each spring (the
horizontal distance between two springs times the vertical distance between two springs). The
corresponding lateral displacement is collected from the abscissa values multiplied by the
abutment height to generate a set of springs data. A Python code was also used herein to add soil
springs to the FE model through connector elements, as in the case of the pile springs. Appendix
A includes typical Python code for adding springs to the abutment.
4.6 Pile Finite Element Model
One of the two centrally located piles under bent 1 of the bridge on SR-18 (pile No.6 in Figure
4.5) has been modelled using ABAQUS/CAE. The pile is 6.8 m (22.25 ft) in length measured from
the ground level. The dimensions and material properties of the pile are listed in Table 4.1. 3D
solid elements (C3D8R) were used to model both the concrete core and the steel tube. The element
is an 8-node linear brick, reduced integration, hourglass control and capable of representing 3D
state of stress (ABAQUS/CAE manual). Hexahedral elements were used to model the pile shell
and wedge elements for modelling the concrete core. Concrete and steel were modeled as linear
elastic materials as the displacement range for the pile is not excessive under thermal bridge
movement and is considered acceptable for calibration process. Full composite action was assumed
between the concrete core and the steel pipe through connecting both contacting surfaces by TIE
constraint.
60
Figure 4.5 pile distribution of bridge SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2004)
The soil around the piles is composed mostly of silty loam according to the site investigations as
can be seen from Table 4.2 and 4.3. The water table lies 10.2 m (33.5 ft) below ground level. This
depth is below the pile tip; therefore, a dry soil is assumed in calculations. N in tables refers to the
number of blows in Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
61
TABLE 4.1 PILE PROPERTIES OF BRIDGE SR-18
Pile Property (CFT 14)

Outer diameter 14 in (360 mm)
Nominal wall thickness 0.312 in (7.9 mm)
Design wall thickness 0.291 in (7.4 mm)
Modulus of elasticity of steel 29000 ksi (200 GPa)
Poisson’s ratio of steel 0.3
Yield strength of steel 35 ksi (241 MPa)
compressive strength of concrete 4 ksi (27.6 Mpa)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete 3605 ksi (24.8 GPa)
Poisson’s ratio of concrete 0.2
TABLE 4.2 SOIL BORING FOR BENT 1 OF SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2011)
Depth below
N Soil Composition
Ground Level (ft)
0 - 0.5 - Asphalt
0.5 - 1.4 - Concrete
1.4 - 2.9 17 Silty loam, Slightly Moist, Stiff, Tan
2.9 - 5.0 23 Silty clay loam, stiff, slightly moist, gray
Silty loam, some sand, gravel, stiff, slightly moist,
5.0 - 10.0 20
Brown
10.0 - 15.0 21 Silty loam, stiff, slightly moist, Tan
Silty clay loam, stiff, slightly moist, grayish brown,
15.0 - 20.0 16
medium
20.0 - 25.0 15 Silty loam, medium stiff, slightly moist, gray
25.0 - 30.0 6 Silty loam, soft, moist, gray
30.0 - 35.0 47 Silty loam, soft, gray
35.0 - 45.0 78 Silty loam, hard, dry, gray
62
TABLE 4.3 SOIL BORING DATA FOR BENT 6 OF SR-18 (Frosch et al., 2011)
Depth blow
N Soil Composition
Ground Level (ft)
0.0 – 0.6 - Asphalt
0.6 – 1.2 - Concrete
1.2 – 2.7 19 Silty loam, stiff, slightly moist, brown
2.7 – 8.0 28 Sandy loam, medium dense, slightly moist, gray
8.0 – 10.0 16 Silty loam, medium stiff, slightly moist, brown
10.0 – 15.0 8 Sandy loam, loose, slightly moist, brown
15.0 – 20.0 12 Sand, loose, slightly moist, tan
20.0 – 25.0 19 Sand+ some gravel, medium dense, moist, brown
25.0 – 30.0 63 Silty loam, hard, slightly moist, gray
30.0 -35.0 112 Silty clay loam + gravel, hard, dry, gray
The soil was modelled using nonlinear springs following the guidelines in chapter 3. The springs
were created through connector elements using Axial and Elasticity options to generate the force-
deflection data of the nonlinear p-y relationship. Springs were distributed evenly at one foot apart
along the pile depth. Forces in the springs were computed by multiplying the soil pressure by the
distance between springs. The first spring at the pile-abutment connection (depth=0) and the last
spring (depth =L) has a tributary length equal to half the distance of the intermediate springs
because the intermediate springs receive half the spacing between nodes from both sides while the
edge spring has spacing from only one side as shown in Figure 4.6.
63
Edge Springs
0.50 ft
Intermediate Springs
1.00 ft
Figure 4.6 spring tributary area for the pile
Computation of p-y data requires predicting soil parameters such as soil shear strength, effective
unit weight, and angle of internal friction. The soil boring data available for this project include
only soil type and SPT-N values and there are no laboratory tests such as triaxial or direct shear
available to predict soil strength parameters. Therefore, processing is required to extract the
required p-y curves parameters from the available SPT data and soil type.
To obtain the soil parameters, the SPT-N values were used as a benchmark for determining the
soil parameters based on typical values found in geotechnical references. A weighted average
procedure is suggested for the SPT number of the blows across the soil profile for bent 1 and it is
estimated to be 18. Prakash and Sharma (1990) values shown in Table 4.4 were used to compute
the undrained shear strength of the soil (Cu) based on the estimated average value of SPT-N for
the soil at this site. The soil consistency, according to typical reference values, is very stiff, which
is in the range (120 kN/m2) corresponding to the estimated average SPT-N value.
64
TABLE 4.4 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSISTENCY (Prakash and Sharma, 1990)
Consistency Undrained Shear Strength, kPa SPT-N Values

(lb./ft2)
Very soft <12 (250.63) <2
Soft 12-25 (250.6-522) 2-4
Firm 25-50 (522-1044) 4-8
stiff 50-100 (1044-2088) 8-15
Very stiff 100-200 (2088-4177) 15-30
Hard >200 (4177) >30
Fang (1991) values are used herein for correlating SPT-N values and the angle of internal friction
for cohesionless soils, based on two investigators: Peck (1974) and Meyerhof (1956). The average
SPT-N value for the soil indicates that the soil is medium graded, the value of the angle of internal
friction () could be interpolated from the table to be 32o based on Peck and 37o based on
Meyerhof, therefore, an average value of 34° is considered.
TABLE 4.5 SPT-N VALUES VS ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION FOR COHESIONLESS

SOILS (Fang, 1991)
Angle of internal friction, 
SPT-N Relative Density Peck et al. (1974) Meyerhof (1956)

Very loose sand <4 < 0.2 < 29 < 30
Loose sand 4-10 0.2-0.4 29-30 30-35
Medium sand 10-30 0.4-0.6 30-36 35-40
Dense sand 30-50 0.6-0.8 36-41 40-45
Very dense sand >50 > 0.8 > 41 > 45
65
The water table is well below the tip of the pile, as such, a dry unit weight is considered for the
calculations of p-y curves. Table 4.6 by Das (2011) includes the dry unit weight for different soil
types, it is used herein to estimate the dry unit weight of the soil.
TABLE 4.6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT SOIL TYPES (Das, 2011)
Dry unit weight, d

Soil Type Void ratio, e Ib/ft3 kN/m3
Loose uniform sand 0.8 92 14.5
Dense uniform sand 0.45 115 18
Loose angular-grained silty sand 0.65 102 16
Dense angular-grained silty sand 0.4 121 19
Stiff clay 0.6 108 17
Soft clay 0.9-1.4 73-93 11.5-14.5
Loess 0.9 86 13.5
Soft organic clay 2.5-3.2 38-51 6-8
Glacial till 0.3 134 21
Soil borings indicate multiple soil types contributing to the mixture of the soil around the pile. As
such, three soil types were selected for the current study: silt, very stiff clay, and medium sand, to
examine the potential representation of those types compared to experimental behavior. Table 4.7
includes parameters of the three soil types used in LPILE. The strains that correspond to one-half
of the principle stress difference 50 and the soil modulus Kpy in Table 4.7 are based on laboratory
tests for soil and were taken and from Reese and Van Impe (2011) according to the soil type used.
66
TABLE 4.7 SOIL PARAMETERS USED IN LPILE MODELS
Undrained Shear Strength Kpyd,

Soil Type b dc, kN/m3 50d
Cu,a lb/ft2(kN/m2) lb/in3(kN/m3)
Silt 2500 (120) 34° 110 (17) 0.005 1090 (295,430)
Very stiff clay 2500 (120) - 110 (17) 0.005 1000 (271,000)
Medium Sand - 34° 100 (16) - 90 (24,430)
a
Interpolated value based on Prakash and Sharma (1990)
b
Based on Fang (1991)
c
Suggested values for dry unit weight by Das (2010)
d
According to LPILE manual, 2015.
Figure 4.7 depicts the p-y curves for medium sand computed using LPILE; p-y curves for other
soil types (silt and very stiff clay) are in Appendix A. Curves are plotted every 0.6 m (2 ft) apart
to remove congestion and for more clarity; the actual curves used in the FE model were spaced 0.3
m (1 ft) apart.
To investigate the type of soil at the site, the three assumed soil types were analyzed with LIPLE
and compared to the experimental response. Loading of the model includes applying an axial load
of 355.85 kN (80 kips) according to the design calculations, combined with a lateral displacement
of 9.7 mm (0.38 inches) which represents the reading of the convergence meter at a temperature
differential of 15.5 °C (60° F) (Frosch et al., 2006).
Figure 4.8 shows the lateral pile displacements along its depth for the three soil types. The
computed displacements were compared to their experimental counterpart (Frosch et al., 2006).
67
y (mm)
0.0 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2 15.2
6000 1050.7
z = 1 ft
z = 3 ft
5000 z = 5 ft
z = 7 ft 840.6
z = 9 ft
4000 z = 11 ft
z = 13 ft
630.4
p (kN/m)
z = 15 ft
p (lb/in) z = 17 ft
3000 z = 19 ft
z = 21 ft 420.3
2000
210.1
1000
0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
y (in)
Figure 4.7 p-y curves for medium-Sand
Displacement (mm)
-2.54 0.00 2.54 5.08 7.62 10.16
0 0.00
-5 -1.52 Depth (m)

Depth (ft)
-10 -3.05
-15 -4.57
Experimental (Frosch et al.,2006)
LPILE (Silt)
-20 LPILE (Very Stiff Clay) -6.10
LPILE (Medium Sand)
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (in)
Figure 4.8 Displacement along pile depth for different soil types
68
It is obvious from the plot that the sandy soil curve is the closest one to the experimental response,
although the difference among the soil types is minimal. The shape of the curves is also well
matched to the experimental response. Therefore, the medium sand is considered as the
representative site soil and is used in the entire SR-18 bridge model because of its proximity to the
experimental behavior.
To validate the FE model and examine the performance of the nonlinear springs in ABAQUS
compared to LPILE, a pile model with medium sand is established in ABAQUS using the same
geometry and loading conditions of the LPILE model. The top of the pile is assumed to move
freely in the horizontal direction and is restrained against rotations in all directions. These
boundary conditions are assumed to simulate the pile head encased in a concrete abutment and
permitted to translate laterally. The axial load and lateral displacement were applied to a central
reference point tied to the pile head surface to avoid local stress concentrations and maintain rigid
body movement.
Nonlinear soil springs were attached to the pile along its depth at a spacing of 0.3 m (1 ft) in two
orthogonal directions according to the procedure presented above. The p-y curves were obtained
from LPILE and the soil springs were attached to the model using a connector element with
nonlinear elastic behavior. The displacements calculated by ABAQUS are compared with those
by LPILE as shown in Figure 4.9. It can be observed from the figure that the displacements of both
software outputs precisely coincide with each other, which is logical as both programs share the
same p-y curves. This is further proof of the efficiency of connector elements in representing soil
behavior around the pile. It is noteworthy that LPILE depends on the finite difference method in
solving the differential equation of the soil-pile interaction, which is less accurate than the finite
element method but still gives identical results in small displacement theory.
69
Displacement (mm)
0.0 2.5 5.1 7.6 10.2
0 0.00
LPILE (Medium Sand)
ABAQUS (Medium Sand)
-5 -1.52
Depth (m)
Depth (ft) -10 -3.05
-15 -4.57
-20 -6.10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Displacement (in)
Figure 4.9 ABAQUS vs LPILE computed displacements
4.7 Finite Element Model of the Bridge
A 3D finite element model was developed for the entire bridge using software ABAQUS/CAE
Standard. All bridge components were constructed using solid elements (C3D8R) as in the case of
the pile model. Supports on all piers were modelled as rollers except at the bridge centerline, where
the supports were restrained (prevented from movement) in both horizontal and vertical directions.
The connection between the bridge deck and the girders was assumed to be fully composite and a
tie constraint was enforced between them. Connections between girders and abutments, piles and
abutments, and the concrete pile core and pile shell were also all assumed to be fully composite
and a tie constraint used between them. Figure 4.10 shows the finite element discretization of the
bridge model with all details simulated as the actual geometry of the bridge.
70
Figure 4.10 Bridge FE model
Material properties of the bridge deck, girders and abutments are taken according to the project
information (Frosch et al., 2011) as follows: The modulus of elasticity of the deck and abutments
is 24.8 GPa (3605 ksi) and for the prestressed girders is 30.4 GPa (4415 ksi). A linear elastic
behavior was assumed for all bridge materials. The three most commonly used shrinkage models
in practice were selected to calibrate the finite element model with the experimental data. The
models are ACI-209, CEB-MC-90-99, and CEB-MC-90-90. The GL-2000 model was excluded
because it yielded higher results for shrinkage in preliminary calculations. A MATLAB code was
developed to compute the shrinkage strains according the guidelines of ACI 209.2R-08. Shrinkage
strains were computed for both the deck and girders and were included in the FE model through
equivalent temperatures. Conversion of shrinkage strain into temperature was performed by
dividing the shrinkage strain by the coefficient of thermal expansion of the concrete, where the
thermal expansion of concrete was taken as 9.9 x10-6/°C. Figure 4.11 shows the shrinkage models
for the deck of the bridge.
71
400
300
me
200
ACI-209 Model
100 CEB-MC-90-99 Model
CEB-MC-90-90 Model
GL2000 Model
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (days)
Figure 4.11 Shrinkage strain of the bridge deck
The abutment-backfill springs were computed considering two earth pressure theories: Rankine
and log-spiral theory. The backfill soil was assumed to be dense sand with a unit weight of 20
kN/m3 (130 lb/ft3) and angle of internal friction of (35°) as per Frosch et al. (2011). Wall friction
between the abutment and the backfill was assumed to be two thirds the angle of internal friction.
Based on these soil properties, the coefficient of passive earth pressure in the Rankine case is
3.69 and, in the log-spiral case is 7.78. Force-displacement curves for the Rankine earth pressure
theory with =35o is shown in Figure 4.12.
72
Displacement (mm)
0.0 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2 15.2
5000 22.2
z= 1ft
z= 2 ft
z= 3 ft
4000 z= 4 ft
17.8
z= 5 ft
z= 6 ft
3000 z= 7 ft 13.3
Force (kN)
Force (lb)
z= 8 ft
z= 9 ft
2000 8.9
1000 4.4
0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (ft)
Figure 4.12 Force-displacement curves for SR-18 Backfill (Rankine with =35o)
The dead load of the bridge was included in the model for all its components through the “Gravity”
option in ABAQUS using the respective densities of each material. Live load was not included in
the model, because it has been shown by Kim and Laman (2012) that traffic loading has an
insignificant effect on the bridge response. The temperature values were taken from the field
measurements of the bridge. An average temperature differential of 70°F was taken and used in
the model as “predefined fields”.
Two bridge models were established to track bridge expansion and contraction phases separately,
due to the unavailability of compression-only-springs within ABAQUS to model the soil behavior
behind the abutment as stated earlier. Unlike the pile case, the abutment has soil on only one side
73
and in the contraction phase, the springs should be nulled as the abutment moves away from the
soil, assuming negligible active pressure. As such, one model is required for the expansion phase
and another for the contraction phase, and the overall behavior is obtained by adding up the
contraction and expansion displacements at the peak points (equivalent to the average maximum
and minimum temperatures of 90°F and 20°F, respectively) to track the response along
instrumentation time.
4.8 Calibration Matrix
To calibrate the FE model with the experimental data, the key parameters governing bridge
response were varied to help capture the experimental response. Those parameters include:
temperature variation across superstructure depth, time dependent effects, and boundary
conditions. Multiple finite element models were built for the bridge to account for various cases.
The abutment displacement and earth pressure were selected as the critical responses for
calibration. Ten cases were investigated with different combinations. Temperature variations
across the superstructure profile were assumed for three scenarios: deck only temperature (TD),
deck and girder temperature (TDG) and deck temperature plus 50% girder temperature. The third
scenario implies full measured field temperature given to the deck and half of the temperature
given to the girders. This distribution is considered to simulate the potential temperature gradient
across the bridge superstructure, whereas the two other options (TD or TDG) suggest full
temperature potential given to the deck or girders.
Time-dependent effects were incorporated through shrinkage strains; creep and prestressed losses
were ignored in the current study because their effects are minimal. Shrinkage strains were applied
74
according to two cases: deck only shrinkage (SD), and deck and girder shrinkage combined
(SDG), with three shrinkage models as previously stated. Two theories for passive earth pressure
were considered: Rankine and log-spiral theory. This calibration improvement progress was
evaluated for each case and was adjusted for subsequent cases by maintaining the successful
assumptions and excluding cases leading to anomalous results, until the response was fully
optimized compared to experimental behavior. The calibration matrix with all potential
combinations is shown in Table 4.8. Figure 4.13 shows a schematic diagram for the sequence of
operations of the FE modelling of the whole bridge model.
TABLE 4.8 CALBRATION MATRIX
Shrinkage Models
Earth Pressure
Temp CEB-90-99 CEB-90-90 ACI-209
Theory
Log-
Case No. Deck Girder Deck Girder Deck Girder Deck Girder Rankine
Spiral
1 x x x x - - - - - x
2 x x x - - - - - x
3 x - x x - - - - - x
4 x - x - - - - - x
5 x 50% x x - - - - - x
6 x x x x - - - - x -
7 x 50% x x - - - - x -
8 x 50% x - - - - - x -
9 x 50% - - x - - - x -
10 x 50% - - x - - - x -
75
MATLAB Code Get Backfill Soil Data Get Pile Soil Data
(Shrinkage Models)
Digitizing and computing the p- LPILE (p-y curves for piles)

y curves for the abutment
Nonlinear Force-Displacement Data Nonlinear Force-Displacement

for abutment springs data for pile springs
Python Codes to
attach springs to the
ABAQUS model
Temperature Data
ABAQUS Final Model
Figure 4.13 Flow chart of the FE modelling
76
4.9 Results
The location of the convergence meter where the lateral displacement of the abutment is collected
during the experimental program (Frosch et al, 2011) was is selected to compare the monitored
versus the calculated displacements. The convergence meter was mounted 0.38 m (15 in) from
the bottom of the abutment (Figure 4.14). This same point in the FE model was used for
calibration of computed results. Results were adequately categorized according to earth pressure
theories; other cases are discussed inclusively to cover the calibration matrix cases.
Figure 4.14 Location of the convergence meter (Frosch et al., 2010)
77
4.9.1 Log-Spiral Theory
Five cases were evaluated considering the log-spiral lateral earth pressure theory for the soil behind
the abutment, including different combinations of temperature and shrinkage scenarios, as listed
in Table 4.8. Figure 4.15 shows the abutment displacement response along seven years, with
temperature and shrinkage given for both deck and girders. In this figure (case 1), two scenarios
are compared to the measured behavior, one including a shrinkage model (CEB-90-99) and the
other without shrinkage. The general trend of the abutment displacement tends to move upward
hysterically with time. This “ratcheting” is attributed to the difference in abutment displacement
values in the contraction and expansion phases. In the case of bridge contraction, there are no soil
springs resisting abutment while it moves inward. The reverse can be noted in the case of
expansion, in which the soil springs push against the abutment movement and hence reduce the
values of displacement. The figure indicates that the amplitude of the displacement is higher than
the experimental amplitude both with and without shrinkage. The curve is higher even before
superimposing shrinkage strains over the abutment displacement.
Figure 4.16 depicts case (2) in the calibration matrix. In this case, girder shrinkage is omitted from
the previous case, while keeping the same other parameters to investigate girder shrinkage. The
same response of Figure 4.15 is still dominant, but the displacement curves with shrinkage were
shifted slightly downward after removing girder shrinkage. The amplitude of the displacement
remained the same.
78
2.0 50.80
Measured
FEM without shrinkage
1.6 40.64
Abutment Displacement (in)
Abutment Displacement (mm)

FEM with CEB-90-99 model
Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.15 Case (1) TD, TG, SD, SG, Log-spiral theory
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.16 Case (2) TD, TG, SD, Log-spiral theory
79
Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 show the displacement of the abutment for cases (3) and (4),
respectively. The temperature is given to the deck only, without girder temperature, to study the
effect of temperature across bridge superstructure on the behavior. It is obvious in these cases that
the displacement amplitude is significantly reduced compared to the experimental curve. The
computed results still exceed the measured data, indicating higher computed displacements in the
FE model. This clearly indicates that this assumption for the temperature load is ineffective, and
further adjustment is justified regarding the distribution of the temperature across the height of the
superstructure.
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.17 Case (3) TD, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory

80
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.18 Case (4) TD, SD (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory
Figure 4.19 represents case (5), in which a full temperature change is assumed for the bridge deck
and half of the temperature change for the girders. This attempt aims at examining further potential
distribution of the temperature across the bridge superstructure. In this case, it can be noted that
the computed displacement amplitude closely matches the experimental values, indicating a more
optimized distribution for temperature across the superstructure. However, even though
displacement response coincides with experimental response in the early stages of monitoring,
there is an obvious shift upwards in the later monitoring years. Moreover, the shrinkage addition
seems to overestimate the overall displacement.
81
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.19 Case (5) TD plus 50% TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Log-spiral theory
4.9.2 Rankine Case
As a further step towards refining the FE response versus the experimental response, five more
cases were also investigated using Rankine earth pressure theory to capture the behavior of SR-
18. The cases were indicated in the calibration matrix with almost the same configuration as the
log-spiral theory cases, but with greater focus on the promising temperature scenario across the
superstructure section, as was concluded from the previous section. Figure 4.20 (case 6) shows the
displacement response with temperature given for both the bridge deck and the girders. The
amplitude of the displacement remains higher than the experimental displacement. The shrinkage,
however, shifts the curve upward in this case. Figure 4.21, which represents case (7), also indicates
that the temperature gradient is more representative of the experimental data in terms of amplitude
82
height. The displacements tend to match experimental data in the early stages but deviate at later
stages. In general, this case and case (5) explain the distribution of temperature over the
superstructure height by giving full temperature change for the deck and half to the girders; such
an approach yielded good results in comparison to experimental results. As such, this distribution
was maintained in the subsequent cases while continuing to change other parameters, to obtain a
more refined representation of the experimental behavior.
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.20 Case (6) TD, TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory
83
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6
40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.21 Case (7) TD plus 50% TG, SD plus SG (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory
Figure 4.22 (case 8) represents a case under the same conditions of the previous case (case 7) but
here shrinkage is only given to the deck. This case seemed to better match the experimental
response than all the previous trials. It is obvious that girder shrinkage has a negligible influence
over the bridge response. It could be thought of as if the girders have consumed all the shrinkage
stain during the curing period before coming to be mounted at the bridge location. The deck
shrinkage, however, proved to be the major determinant the displacement response.
Figure 4.23 (case 9) shows the response of the abutment using the CEB-90-90 model as a shrinkage
substitute of the previous case. In this case, the behavior of the abutment also matches experimental
behavior reasonably well. Shrinkage strains herein satisfactorily pulled the computed curve to the
84
desired bridge monitored counterpart. The same results were almost obtained for the ACI-209
shrinkage model as shown in Figure 4.24 (case 10), in which the displacement curve coincides
fairly well with experimental behavior with a slight deviation in the response at the beginning of
the bridge monitoring.
2.0 2.0
Measured
1.6 1.6

Contraction
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
Expansion
0.0 0.0
-0.4 -0.4
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.22 Case (8) TD plus 50% TG, SD (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory
85
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.23 Case (9) TD plus 50% TG, SD (CEB-90-90), Rankine theory
2.0 50.80
Measured
1.6 40.64

FEM with ACI-209 model
Contraction
1.2 30.48
0.8 20.32
0.4 10.16
Expansion
0.0 0.00
-0.4 -10.16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Time
Figure 4.24 Case (10) TD plus 50% TG, SD (ACI-209), Rankine theory
86
It can be concluded that the CEB-90-90 and ACI-209 models best represent shrinkage effects
on concrete IABs. The Rankine earth pressure theory was found to be a reasonable model
representing the influence of the soil behind abutments, more so than the log-spiral theory.
Furthermore, temperature distribution has proved to be more effective in capturing the real
behavior than assuming a uniform distribution across the superstructure section. The distribution
considered in the current study is very simple and easily applicable in analysis and design, which
helps at avoiding sloping gradients that complicate the implementation of finite element models.
The optimal temperature distribution was easily established by assuming full temperature change
for the bridge deck and half the temperature change for the girders.
As further verification of the abutment response, the computed lateral earth pressure is compared
with its measured experimental counterpart. Measured earth pressure was collected from the
pressure cells mounted at the back of the abutment at the location of the longitudinal displacement
measurement point (15 in from the base of the abutment). Computation of the earth pressure at
the point of interest (earth pressure location) is conducted by forcing the mesh size to coincide
with that point. The pressure is given as the force in the spring divided by the tributary area for
that spring. The force in the spring is computed from the displacement of that point (node)
projected at the force-displacement curve, which is extracted from LPILE.
Figure 4.25 shows the earth pressure behind the abutment for the two theories, Rankine and log-
spiral. As can be seen here, the Rankine theory yielded results closer to the measured earth pressure
compared to the log-spiral theory. There is a slight shift in the computed pressure even in Rankine
theory, which might be attributed to the gap which generates between the abutment wall and the
backfill over the contraction phase during thermal hysteretic cycling. In general, it can be
87
concluded that Rankine theory is the best representative model for the backfill soil. This further
validates what has been concluded previously regarding Rankine theory. The log-spiral theory
yielded higher pressure values and therefore prevented the abutment from necessary displacement,
permitting the bridge response in general to move more inward (shorten), and elevating the
displacement curve above the experimental behavior.
Computed (Rankine)
4000 Computed (Log-Spiral) 191.5
Measured
Earth Pressure (kN/m2)

Earth Pressure (psf)
3000 143.6
2000 95.8
1000 47.9
0 0.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Time
Figure 4.25 Calculated vs Measured earth pressure behind abutment
4.10 Summary and Conclusions
The FE modelling of a prestressed concrete IAB showed very good agreement with field
monitoring behavior over an instrumentation period of seven years. All bridge components were
modeled using 3D solid finite elements and nonlinear soil springs for the soil surrounding the
88
piles and behind the abutment. Soil springs were generated using p-y curves which are computed
by software LPILE. Abutment springs were incorporated into the model through digitized Clough
and Duncan curves to represent soil passive earth pressure against bridge expansion. A Python
code was developed to attach soil springs to the FE model. Three shrinkage models were used to
include shrinkage strain effects in the bridge model. The shrinkage strains were converted into
temperature change equivalents and applied to the deck and girders of the bridge. Abutment
displacements were calibrated against experimental counterparts to come up with the best loading
and boundary conditions affecting the behavior. Soil pressure behind abutments is also examined
for additional validation. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. The CEB-90-90 shrinkage model is the most representative model for concrete behavior
over the monitoring time.
2. The deck contributes substantially to shrinkage effects on the concrete in IAB, however,
the prestressed girders have little or no shrinkage influence on the bridge response.
3. The Rankine earth pressure theory outperforms other theories in capturing the abutment-
backfill interaction behavior.
4. The distribution of the temperature along the depth of the superstructure is important in
simulating the displacement amplitude of the abutment; the best simple distribution over
the entire depth was found by giving full temperature change to the deck and half of the
temperature change to the girders. Other distributions either over- or underestimate the
displacement amplitude.
5. Abutment displacement ratcheting (deck shortening) over time occurs due to the soil
restraining effect to the abutment during the expansion phase of the bridge. The
displacement induced in the passive case (bridge expansion) is less than the displacement
89
in the active case (bridge contraction); this disparity in displacements leads to an
accumulative difference in the net response which is responsible for the overall inward
shortening of the bridge.
The study contributes towards understanding the behavior of IABs, and also provides a sound
evaluation of modelling techniques in parametric studies and in designing various IAB
components. The study is limited to prestressed concrete IABs. Other bridges like steel stringer
IABs or concrete IABs require additional investigation towards this end.
90
5. PARAMETRIC STUDY
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a parametric study for a concrete integral abutment bridge supported by steel
HP piles to investigate the effect of bridge length and pile size, orientation, soil type and stiffness
on limiting maximum values for IAB design parameters: pile displacement, abutment
displacement, pile stresses, deck and girder stresses. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
models have been built using software ABAQUS utilizing outcomes of the calibration procedure
presented in the previous chapter. The backfill soil behind the abutments and the soil around the
piles are modelled using nonlinear springs. Results of the parametric study are presented and
discussed, and conclusions are drawn.
91
5.2 Parametric Study Base Case
The base case which has been chosen for the current parametric study is bridge No. 211 located in
central Pennsylvania (Kim and Laman, 2012) and shown in Figure 5.1. The bridge is a single span
IAB with a total length of 34.7m (114 ft) and 13.8m (45 ft) in width. The deck slab is CIP concrete
and supported by four PennDOT 28/78 prestressed concrete girders. Figure 5.2 shows the layout
and section of the bridge. Girder dimensions are shown in Figure 5.3 and Table 5.1. Abutments
are 4.3 m (14’1”) in height and 0.914 m (36 in) in thickness and supported by 11 HP12x74 steel
piles spaced at 1.24 m (49 in) oriented on the weak axis bending. This bridge was chosen because
of the high single-span length and the available plans and details.
Figure 5.1 Bridge 211 in central Pennsylvania (Kim and Laman, 2012)
92
a. Bridge 211 layout
b. Section through bridge 211
Figure 5.2 Bridge 211 a. bridge layout b. section through bridge
93
Figure 5.3 PennDOT 28/78 prestressed concrete girder section (PennDOT)
TABLE 5.1 PennDOT 28/78 PRESTRESSED GIRDERS DIMENSIONS (PennDOT) (ALL

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES)
Beam Designation W2 W1 D W3 A (in2) I (in4)

28/78 42 28 78 8 1133 898984
94
5.3 Selection of Parameters
Four parameters were selected for the current study: bridge length, pile section, pile orientation,
and soil type around the pile as shown in Table 5.2. Single span length of all bridges was taken as
100 ft. to the base case in the previous section. Bridges with one, two, three, and four spans were
considered to study the effect of length on the key design parameters. Three pile sections with two
orientations, weak and strong, were also considered. Two soil types around the pile were
investigated: sand and clay, with two stiffness values each. The soil behind the abutment was kept
constant throughout the study and set to be medium sand. Bridge width, thickness, and abutment
height were also kept constant throughout the study and were equal to 13.7 m (45 ft.), 200 mm (8
in), and 4.27 m (14 ft.), respectively. Table 5.3 shows the properties of HP sections used in the
parametric study.
TABLE 5.2 PARAMERTERS USED IN THE STUDY
Parameter Value
Bridge length 100, 200, 300,400
HP10x57
Pile section HP12x74
HP14x102
Pile orientation Weak, Strong
Clay (stiff, soft)
Soil type
Sand (dense, medium)
95
TABLE 5.3 HP SECTIONS PROPERTIES
Depth Flange Width Flange Web Thickness Area

Pile (in) Thickness
bf (in) tw (in) (in2)
tf (in)
HP10x57 10.0 10.2 0.565 0.565 16.7
HP12x74 12.1 12.2 0.61 0.605 21.8
HP14x102 14.0 14.8 0.705 0.705 30.1
5.4 Soil Properties Used in the Parametric Study
A medium sand was assumed as the backfill material behind abutments with an angle of internal
friction of 35° and a unit weight of 100 lb./ft3. Backfill springs were computed based on Clough
and Duncan (1991) curves and were digitized to the desired angle of internal friction as in the
previous chapter. Figure 5.4 shows the nonlinear force-displacement curves for the backfill soil
that were used in the FE models throughout the parametric study.
Four soil types around the piles were considered: medium sand, dense sand, soft clay and stiff clay.
Their properties were estimated based on typical values in references and the Lpile manual and are
shown in Table 5.4. Lpile software was used to compute the pressure-displacement relationships
and then converted into force-displacement data by multiplying by the tributary length (distance
between springs) and inputted into ABAQUS software by using a connector element (Refer to
Chapter 4 for the procedure of calculating abutment and pile springs).
96
TABLE 5.4 SOIL PROPERTIES AROUND THE PILES
Soil Type C (lb/ft2)   (lb/ft3) 50 k (lb/in3)

Medium Sand - 35 100 - 90
Dense Sand - 40 115 - 225
Soft Clay 250 - 80 0.02 30
Stiff Clay 2000 - 108 0.005 500

Passive Resistance, (lbs)
Figure 5.4 Load-displacement of the backfill soil
The range of temperatures that was considered for the models is based on AASHTO 2012
specifications. The minimum and the maximum design temperature for concrete bridges are 10°F
(-12°C) and 80°F (27°C), respectively, for moderate climate. For cold climates, the minimum and
the maximum design temperature for concrete bridges are 0°F (-18°C) and 80°F (27°C),
97
respectively. To study the maximum effects of the temperature variations on the IA bridges, cold
climate temperatures were chosen in this parametric study. The mean temperature was taken as the
construction temperature in summer which will be 80°F (27°C) for cold climate. As the
temperature drops to zero during winter, the temperature increment T will be 80°F (27°C). As
such, the temperature change will be 80°F and -80°F for the expansion and contraction phases,
respectively. The temperature distribution along the superstructure was taken according to chapter
4 calibration process, by giving full temperature change for the deck and half temperature change
for the girders.
5.5 Finite Element Model Setup
All bridge components were modelled using an 8-node linear reduced integration with hour glass
control solid elements (C3D8R) for both concrete and the steel components. The same finite
element assumptions that were considered previously in the calibrations process were also
implemented in the current analysis. Linear elastic behavior was assumed for both materials as the
displacement range is not too high under thermal bridge movement.
Full composite action was assumed between girders and the deck and between the pile head and
the abutment bottom by enforcing a (TIE constraint) between them. Lateral displacement along
the bridge length was accounted for by providing girder supports in multi-span bridges having a
free translation degree of freedom along bridge length while restraining all other degrees of
freedom to impose maximum effect on the pile-abutment system. Piles were assumed fully fixed
at the bottom by restraining all degrees of freedom. Soil springs were attached to the abutment
every 0.3 m (1 ft) apart horizontally and vertically. In case of the piles, soil springs were attached
98
evenly at 1 ft apart along its depth. Guidelines for attaching the soil springs to the FE models are
presented in Chapter 3. Python code was used to attach soil springs to the abutments and the piles
to save modelling time. T A typical FE model of the bridge is shown in Figure 5.5. Dead load of
the bridge was included in analysis through the “GRAVITY LOAD” option using the density of
the bridge component materials. Temperature load was applied to the deck and the girders through
the “PREDEFINED FIELDS” option. Full temperature difference (80°F) was applied to the deck
and half of the temperature to the girders to account for the temperature gradient across the
superstructure utilizing the outcomes of chapter 3. Bridge deck and abutments were meshed with
a 12-in element size while other bridge components (girders and piles) were meshed with 6-in
element size to capture response accurately in small locations. The analysis was performed using
the “STATIC” option with geometric nonlinearity.
Figure 5.5 Typical bridge FE model used in the parametric study
99
5.6 Effect of Bridge Length
Figure 5.6 shows substructure displacement profile for four bridge span lengths: 100, 200, 300,
and 400 ft. HP10x57 with weak axis bending was selected to investigate the response. Two phases
of bridge movement were studied: expansion and contraction. It is obvious from the shape of the
figure that the displacements are almost identical for the expansion and contraction phases for all
bridge lengths. The figure also indicates that the depth of the equivalent cantilever of the pile
increases as the bridge span increases; however, the difference in this depth for various lengths is
insignificant. This figure also validates the use of only one bridge phase (expansion or contraction)
to investigate all responses without repetition. The expansion phase was chosen in the current
study for comparing various bridge responses. The abutment displacement to pile head
displacement ratio decreases as the bridge length increases. This ratio is a function of soil type
behind abutment, abutment height, soil pile, size and orientation of the pile.
100
Contraction Expansion
0
Distance from Abutment top (in)

Abutment
-100
-168
-200
Pile
Bridge Length =100 ft (Exp)
Bridge Length =100 ft (Cont)
-300 Bridge Length =200 ft (Cont)
-400
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lateral Displacement (in)
Figure 5.6 substructure response considering various bridge span lengths.
To study the effect of bridge length on design criteria, three pile sizes with two orientations, weak
and strong, were examined to investigate the effect of bridge length on critical parameters, which
include maximum values of abutment displacement, pile displacement, pile stresses, deck stresses,
and girder stresses. Figure 5.7 shows the relationship between bridge length and abutment
displacement for three pile sizes: HP10x57, HP12x74, and HP14x102, with two axis orientations.
One soil (dense sand) is chosen around the pile to focus on pile stiffness. The figure indicates that
pile size and orientation have an insignificant effect on the abutment displacement. This is
attributed to the small stiffness of the pile compared to overall bridge stiffness. To investigate the
effect of soil stiffness around the pile on abutment displacement, one pile (HP10x57) was selected
with two axis orientations to study the response. Four soil types were studied: dense sand, medium
sand, stiff clay and soft clay. Figure 5.8 and 5.9 show the effect of soil types around the pile on
101
abutment displacement considering four bridge lengths for expansion and contraction phases,
respectively. The figures indicate that neither the soil type nor stiffness have a pronounced effect
on the abutment response for the same reason given above.
It is obvious from the figures that the change in the abutment displacement follows a linear trend
for both of expansion and contraction, which validates the employment of a linear thermal
expansion equation in estimating lateral thermal bridge displacement. Linear thermal expansion of
the abutment is computed from the following equation and is presented in Figures 5.8 and 5.9:
2=  L T/2 5.1
Where 2: is the displacement of the bridge abutment.
L: total length of the bridge.
coefficient of thermal expansion which for normal weight concrete equals 6.0 × 10 –6/°F (10 ×
10–6/°C)
A temperature change (T) was taken as 80°F as in the FE model. It is obvious that the
displacement computed by the equation is higher than the bridge displacement computed by the
finite element model, which is attributed to the restraining effect of the abutment and soil to bridge
expansion in the finite element model while in the thermal expansion equation, the length is free
to expand. The difference between the equation and the FE model displacements is very small at
short bridge lengths, although the difference significantly grows larger as the bridge length
increases.
102
1.0
H10x57 Weak axis
0.9 H12x74 Weak axis
H14x102 Weak axis

0.8 H10x57 Strong axis
H12x74 Strong axis
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Dense Sand
0.2
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.7 Abutment displacement vs bridge length for different pile sections and orientations
Dense sand weak axis

1.2 Medium Sand weak axis
Soft Clay weak axis
Stiff Clay weak axis
Dense sand strong axis

1.0
Medium Sand strong axis
Soft Clay strong axis
Stiff Clay strong axis
0.8 Thermal Expansion equation
0.6
0.4
0.2
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
(bridge expansion)
103
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
Dense Sand
-1.0 Medium Sand
Stiff Clay
-1.1 Soft Clay
Thermal Expansion Equation
HP10x57
-1.2
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
(bridge contraction)
Table 5.5 presents normalized abutment displacements (1/2), where 1 is the abutment
displacement computed by the finite element model. To correlate the displacements calculated by
both methods, normalized displacements are plotted against bridge lengths in Figures 5.10 for the
expansion phase. Curve fitting was used to find a power-based equation and a good correlation is
achieved compared to the observed response (R2=0.97). This equation was used to develop an
empirical equation to quantify the abutment displacement based on a simple thermal expansion
equation.
104
TABLE 5.5 NORMALIZED DISPLACEMENTS VERSUS BRIDGE LENGTHD
Bridge Displacement in Displacement Normalized Displacements

Length (ft) Expansion (FE) 1 (Equation) (1/2)
100 0.258 0.288 0.895833
200 0.415 0.576 0.720486
300 0.5823 0.864 0.6739583
400 0.74 1.152 0.642361
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
1/2
0.75 y = 2.6713x-0.241
0.7
0.65
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.10 Normalized bridge displacement versus bridge length (bridge expansion)
The following simple equation is suggested to compute abutment displacement from the total
bridge length. Figure 5.11 plots the proposed equation against the finite element results.:
  1.3  T L0.76 5.2
105
1.2 Finite Element Model
Thermal Expansion equation
1.1 Proposed Equation

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.11 proposed equation compared to finite element model results
Figure 5.12 depicts pile displacement versus four bridge lengths considering three pile sizes and
two orientations. The figure shows that neither the pile section nor the pile orientation has a
significant impact on the pile top displacement. The displacements are almost the same for all pile
sections and orientations.
Figure 5.13 shows the bridge length versus the maximum pile displacement using only one pile
section (HP10x57) for the investigation. The figure indicates that the pile displacement increases
as the bridge length increases, which is reasonable given that the lateral displacement is
proportional to the bridge length. The figure also reveals that the soil stiffness has more impact
than the pile orientation on the pile displacement. This can be observed through the fact that the
upper and lower values for the pile displacements are achieved by the soft and stiff clay,
106
respectively. Also, the difference between the weak and strong axis orientation for the dense sand
is very small, which means that the pile orientation has only a superficial influence on the pile
displacement, whereas the soil stiffness plays a vital role in controlling the pile displacement. In
general, the weak axis orientation exhibited higher pile displacement than strong axis. The
difference in the pile displacement is unnoticeable within small bridge lengths; however, as the
bridge length increases, the differences increase as well.

H12x74 Weak axis
H10x57 Strong axis
Max Pile Displacement (in)

H14x102 Strong axis
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.12 Max pile displacement vs bridge length for various pile sections and orientations
(bridge expansion)
107
Dense Sand Weak
0.35
Medium Sand Weak
Soft Clay Weak
0.30 Stiff Clay Weak
Dense Sand Strong
Max Pile Displacement (in)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
HP10x57
-0.05
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.13 Max pile displacement vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
(bridge expansion)
In Figure 5.14, a comparison is made to investigate the effect of pile size and orientation on the
pile stresses for different bridge lengths. The Von-Mises stresses are used for the comparison as
the case involves a three-dimensional state of stress. The figure indicates that the stresses increase
as bridge length increases. It is obvious that for the same section, the weak axis suffers higher
stresses than the strong axis. Moreover, piles with small sections sustained higher stresses than
larger sections. The difference between the weak and strong axis orientation is very small.
To obtain more insight about the development of pile stress for different soil types, one pile section
(HP10x57) was selected to investigate the relationship between the bridge length and the pile axial
stresses, considering four soil types and two pile orientations as shown in Figure 5.15. As the
bridge length increases, the stresses (Von-Mises) increase correspondingly. The stiff clay with
108
weak axis orientation exhibited higher stresses, followed by the dense and medium sands with
weak axis orientation. The minimum stresses were observed with the soft clay having strong axis
orientation. It is obvious that pile axial stresses are proportional to the soil stiffness and inversely
proportional to the pile stiffness. The reason behind increased pile stresses as soil stiffness
increases is likely the increased restraining effect of the soil to the confined pile which accelerates
local flange buckling and a consequent spike in pile stresses.
30000
H10x57 Weak axis
H12x74 Weak axis
25000 H14x102 Weak axis
H10x57 Strong axis
Max Pile Axial Stress (psi)
H12x74 Strong axis

20000 H14x102 Strong axis
15000
10000
5000
HP10x57
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.14 Max pile axial stress vs bridge length for various pile sections and orientations
(bridge expansion)
109
35000 Dense Sand Weak
Medium Sand Weak
Stiff Clay Weak
30000
Soft Clay Weak
Dense Sand Strong
Max pile stress (psi)
25000
20000
15000
10000
100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.15 Max pile axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 (bridge expansion)
Figure 5.16 depicts the relationship between the bridge length and the maximum deck stresses.
The figure indicates that as the bridge length increases, the stresses slightly increase. The stresses
maintained an almost constant value of 1200 psi, which indicates that soil stiffness has only a small
influence on the deck stresses. However, the figure reveals that stiff clay induced higher deck
stresses than soft clay, which means that the reduction of soil stiffness around the pile can
contribute slightly to mitigating deck stresses.
110
1400
Max Deck Stresses (psi)
1200
Dense Sand Weak

Medium Sand Weak
Stiff Clay Weak
Soft Clay Weak
Dense Sand Strong HP10x57
1000
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.16 Max deck axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
(bridge expansion)
Figure 5.17 depicts the relationship between the bridge length and the maximum girder stresses.
The same trend is evident here for girder stresses as was seen for deck stresses. Soil with higher
stiffness resulted in higher stresses whereas the lower soil stiffness caused minimum stresses. The
stiffness of the soil plays a vital role in mitigating the girder stresses. Furthermore, predrilled holes
appear to be a very effective solution for flexible design of IABs. Controlling deck and girder axial
stresses is important in preventing the incidence of cracks.
111
3000
2500
Max Girder Stresses (psi)

2000
1500
1000
Dense Sand Weak
Medium Sand Weak
500 Stiff Clay Weak
Soft Clay Weak
HP10x57 Dense Sand Strong
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Bridge Length (ft)
Figure 5.17 Maximum girder axial stress vs bridge length for HP10x57 and weak axis orientation
(bridge expansion)
5.7 Effect of Bridge Length on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles
To investigate the effect of bridge length on pile stresses and displacement profiles through pile
depth, one pile section (HP10x57) with two orientations was selected with four bridge lengths:
100, 200, 300, and 400 ft. Figure 5.18 shows the effect of bridge length on the displacement profile
of HP10x57 for both weak and strong axis orientations. Medium sand was selected as the soil
around the pile for this comparison. The figure indicates that pile with weak axis orientation has a
slightly higher displacement than the strong axis orientation. The effect increases as the bridge
length increases. The depth of the equivalent cantilever is almost constant for different bridge
lengths and pile orientations.
112
Figure 5.19 presents the pile stress profile for the same pile section and orientations and four bridge
lengths. In general, the stresses increase with bridge length for both orientations. The weak axis
exhibits higher stresses than strong axis orientation along the pile depth, which is attributed to the
low stiffness of the weak axis as compared to the strong axis. The maximum stress occurs at the
second segment of the pile (bounded by the first inflection point and the second infection point).
The maximum stress does not arise in the pile-abutment interface because of the rotation of the
abutment which provide some release of fixity and reduced stresses at the pile head.
0
Distance from pile top (ft)
-5
-10
Weak Medium Sand 100
-15 Weak Medium Sand 400
Strong Medium Sand 100
-20
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Displacement (in)
Figure 5.18 Displacement profile for H10x57 and medium sand for various bridge lengths and
pile orientations
113
0
Distance from Pile top (ft)

-5
-10

-15 Weak Medium Sand 400
Srong Medium Sand 100
-20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Von-Mises Stress (psi)
Figure 5.19 Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 and medium sand for various bridge lengths
and pile orientations
5.8 Effect of Soil Type on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles
Figure 5.20 shows the effect of soil type on the displacement profile of HP10x57 for both weak
and strong axis orientations. A bridge length of 200 ft was used herein for the comparison. Four
soil types are examined: dense sand, medium sand, soft clay and stiff clay. The shape of the
displacement profile is almost identical for all soil types with a slight difference between them
(0.01 in). The soft clay resulted in the highest displacement at the pile head relative to the other
soil types.
114
0

-5
Weak Dense Sand

-10 Weak Medium Sand
Weak Soft Clay
Weak Stiff Clay
-15 Strong Dense Sand
Strong Medium Sand
Strong Soft Clay
Strong Stiff Clay
-20
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Displacement (in)
Figure 5.20 Displacement profile for H10x57 for various soil types and weak axis orientation
(Bridge length = 200 ft)
0
-5
-10
Weak Dense Sand
Weak Medium Sand
Weak Soft Clay
Weak Stiff Clay
-15 Strong Dense Sand
Strong Medium Sand
Strong Soft Clay
Strong Stiff Clay
-20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Von-Mises Stress (psi)
Figure 5.21 Max Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 for various soil types and weak axis
orientation (Bridge length = 200 ft)
115
Figure 5.21 shows the effect of soil type on the stress profile of HP10x57 for both weak and strong
axis orientations and for a bridge length of 200 ft. The figure shows that the pile with weak axis in
a stiff clay soil has the lowest stresses at the pile head and maximum stresses in the first segment
of the pile. Higher stresses are induced in pile heads embedded in soft clay. In general, maximum
stresses are induced in the first segment of the pile with the weak axis having the higher stresses.
5.9 Effect of Pile Size on Pile Stresses and Displacements Profiles
Three pile sections were selected to investigate the effect of pile size on displacement and stress
profiles. Axis orientation and soil type were kept constant and selected to be weak axis and soft
clay. Bridge length was also kept constant to concentrate on the effect of pile size.
Figure 5.22 indicates that the pile size has a negligible effect on the displacement profile, since the
pile head displacement is almost the same for all pile sizes. However, a very small difference is
evident between pile sizes for the below-ground displacements.
Figure 5.23 shows the stress distribution along pile depth for the three pile sizes. The smaller pile
size caused higher stresses and the large section induced the lower stresses. The shape of the stress
distribution is identical for all three pile sizes.
116
0

-5
-10
-15
H57WSC400
H74WSC400
H102WSC400
-20
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Displacement (in)
Figure 5.22 Displacement profile for H10x57 for soft clay and weak axis orientation
0
Distance from Pile top (ft)
-5
-10
-15
H57WSC400
H74WSC400
H102WSC400
-20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Von-Mises Stress (ksi)
Figure 5.23 Von-Mises stress profile for H10x57 for soft clay and weak axis orientation
117
5.10 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the following chapter:
1. The change in the abutment displacement follows a linear trend, which validates the
employment of a linear thermal expansion equation in estimating lateral thermal bridge
displacement.
2. The difference between the thermal expansion equation and the FE model displacements
is very small with short bridge lengths; however, the difference grows significantly larger
as bridge length increases.
3. Neither the pile size or pile orientation nor the soil type or soil stiffness have a significant
impact on the abutment displacement.
4. The soil stiffness has more impact than the pile orientation on the pile displacement.
5. The pile stresses are proportional to the soil stiffness and inversely proportional to the pile
stiffness.
6. Weak axis orientation leads to higher stresses than strong axis orientation along the pile
depth, which is attributed to the small stiffness of the weak axis as compared to the strong
axis. The maximum stress occurs at the second segment of the pile (bounded by the first
inflection point and the second infection point). The maximum stress does not appear in
the pile-abutment interface because of the rotation of the abutment which provide some
release of fixity and reduced stresses at the pile head.
7. The soil stiffness has a small influence on the deck stresses. However, the reduction of soil
stiffness around the pile can contribute somewhat to mitigating deck stresses.
118
8. Reducing the stiffness of the soil around the pile can contribute to mitigating stresses on
the bridge girders.
119
6. PILE BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF HP PILES IN INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGES
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a numerical study calibrated to experimental tests to investigate the lateral
displacement capacity of HP piles in integral abutment bridge subjected to combined axial load
and cyclic displacement amplitude. Eleven steel HP sections with two axis orientations (weak and
strong) commonly used in IAB construction practice were investigated. Several soil types
surrounding the piles were examined to investigate the effect of soil stiffness on the displacement
capacity. Based computed pile displacement capacities, maximum length of integral abutment
bridges has been estimated and compared with current practice of US departments of
transportation.
120
6.2 Finite Element Model Setup
A nonlinear finite element (FE) models are established for the piles of IABs utilizing the
commercial software ABAQUS CAE v.14. Quadratic four-node doubly curved shell elements
(S4R) with reduced integration are used throughout this study to discretize the pile models. This
element was used herein to save in the computational running time of the analysis, as it is a very
intensive problem. Also, it has been widely implemented in the buckling analysis of columns under
cyclic loading (Fogarty and Al-Tawil, 2016; Elkadi and Lignos, 2015). A size of (25x25) mm is
used to mesh the models based on a sensitivity study considering a reasonable computational time.
This mesh size had also been validated by other researchers for similar modelling problems (Elkadi
and Lignos, 2015).
A constitutive nonlinear model based on Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990) is used to simulate the
cyclic plasticity of the steel material. The model adopts Von Mises yield criterion and associated
flow rule and assumes combined isotropic/kinematic hardening behavior. Two parts characterizes
this model: The isotropic part and the kinematic part. The isotropic part defines the change in the
yield surface size  and the equivalent plastic strain  , as in the following equation:
0 p
p
 0   |0 Q (1 eb  ) 6.1
where  |0 represents the yield stress when the equivalent plastic strain is zero, Q is the maximum
change in the yield surface size and b is the rate of change of the yield surface size. The kinematic
part of the model defines the change of backstress  , and is given by:
1
  C  p (   )     p 6.2
 0
121
Where C: is the initial kinematic hardening modulus; is the rate at which the backstress
changes with increasing plastic strain  . The maximum change in the backstress in limited by
pl
the ratio of C/. Figure 6.1 and 6.2 show the relation between the backstress and the isotropic
hardening for uniaxial and multiaxial loading, respectively (ABAQUS manual).
Figure 6.1 One-dimensional representation of the nonlinear model (ABAQUS manual)
122
Figure 6.2 Three-dimensional representation of the nonlinear model. (ABAQUS manual)
To this end, an auxiliary FE model is developed to calibrate the hardening parameters of the steel
material under cyclic displacement. A steel grade of ASTM A36 is used throughout this study
because of its wide popularity in construction of most IABs in North America (Dicleli and
Albhaisi, 2003). The stress-strain response of ASTM A36 steel grade used in the FE models is
calibrated against the cyclic coupon tests conducted by (Kaufman et al., 2001) and a reasonable
match is achieved as shown in Figure 6.1. The calibrated cyclic parameters were found to be as
follows: the initial kinematic hardening modulus is 500, the rate at which the backstress changes
is 10, the maximum change in the yield surface size is 8, the rate of change of the yield surface
size is 2. These parameters have been reported on the same range by other researchers (Elkady and
Lignos, 2015; Wigle and Fahnestock, 2010)
123
100 689.5
Experimental
80 551.6
FE Model
60 413.7
40 275.8
Stress (ksi)
Stress (Mpa)
20 137.9
0 0.0
-20 -137.9
-40 -275.8
-60 -413.7
-80 -551.6
-100 -689.5
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Strain
Figure 6.3 Calibration of the of the material cyclic response

(Experimental data from Kaufman et al. 2001)
6.3 Validation of the FE model
Experimental testing conducted by Frosch et al. (2004) on steel HP stub columns were used to
validate the FE modeling. Figure 6.2 shows schematic diagram of the experimental testing.
Two specimens HP10x42 and HP12x53 tested about their weak axis were modelled using the
commercial software ABAQUS CAE. Pile model in IAB is typically divided into three segments
as shown in Figure 6.3. The top segment is bounded by the pile-abutment interface and the first
inflection point; the middle segment is bounded by the first inflection point and the second
inflection point; the third segment is the bottom segment and lie between the second inflection
point and the pile tip. The distance from the pile-abutment interface to the point where lateral
displacement is very small (the depth beyond which has a negligible effect on pile response) is
often called equivalent cantilever.
124
Figure 6.4 Schematic diagram of the experimental testing (Frosch et al., 2011)
Figure 6.5 Typical Pile model in IAB
125
Columns that were modelled herein represent the top segment having a length of 1.524 m (5 ft)
which stands for the distance from the pile abutment interface to the inflection point where the
bending moment vanishes. This length is estimated based on parametric studies assuming different
soil types and pile sections. The loading of the models includes application of a combined axial
load and lateral cyclic displacement history consistent with the experimental testing procedure.
The axial load used was (0.25fyAg); equivalent to the maximum allowable axial stress as per
AASHTO (2002) multiplied by the gross area of the cross section (Ag) where fy the specified yield
strength of steel. Material properties were based on calibrated cyclic coupon tests for Grade A36
steel, which incorporates a range of yield strengths ranging from 40-50 ksi. The yield strengths
were 40 ksi and 49 ksi for specimens HP10x42 and HP12x53, respectively. The cyclic plasticity
parameters presented in the previous section were used for both steel yield strengths, yet each
model was assigned its specified yield strength. Accordingly, the axial loads applied were 124 kips
and 190 kips, for specimens HP10x42 and HP12x53, respectively.
The lateral displacement history is imposed to the column through symmetric revered cyclic
displacement protocol as shown in Table 6.1. The loading scheme started at small displacement
with few cycles to ensure specimen stability. Later, higher displacements are applied combined
with 50 cycles, representing the potential bridge life of 50 years.
126
TABLE 6.1 DISPLACEMENT PROTOCOL USED IN THE TEST BY Frosch et al. (2004)
Cycles
Displacement Range (mm)
HP10X42 HP12X53
0.25 5 5
0.5 10 10
0.75 25 25
1.00 50 50
1.25 50 50
1.5 50 100
1.75 50 70
2.00 50 -
2.25 50 -
The column base is assumed fully fixed to simulate the concrete base which was securely attached
to the floor in the experiments while the other end is assumed free to rotate and displace in the
direction of the cyclic loading, as supposedly encountered during the testing. Figure 6.4 depicts
typical FE model of the specimens. Loading sequence of the model included two steps, the first
step involves axial load applied to the column to provide initial stability. The axial load is then
propagated to the next step to act simultaneously with the displacement protocol. Both of loading
steps were applied to a reference point which was tied to the pile head to provide a rigid body and
distribute loading evenly without potential stress concentration.
127
Figure 6.6 Typical FE model of the test setup
Figure 6.5 shows the lateral load-displacement hysteresis of column HP10x42. The figure indicates
that the FE model almost matches the experimental response for the elastic and yield phases.
However, the lateral load in the experimental results maintained its value at post-buckling
displacements and exhibits a slight shifting past the FE load values, where the lateral load in the
FE model underwent a substantial decrease at a displacement range of (1.25 inch) as can be seen
clearly in Figure 6.6. This is attributed to the deterioration and spalling of the concrete adjacent to
the interface of column and the concrete base which resulted in additional steel material embedded
in the concrete base to emerge and resist the applied loading. The local buckling commenced at a
128
displacement range of 1.25 in according to the experiments; this is the same displacement at which
the lateral load had experienced a sudden drop in the lateral load fluctuations with time in FE
computations as shown in Figure 6.5.
Lateral Displacement (mm)

-50.8 0.0 50.8
30 133.44
FE Model
Experimental (Frosch et al., 2004)
20 88.96
Lateral Load (Kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
Buckling Limit
-20 -88.96
1.25581
-30 -133.44
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Figure 6.7 HP10X42 response: Load-deflection hysteresis at column top
129
30 31.75 mm Amplitude 133.44
20 88.96
Lateral Load (kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
1.31623
-30 -133.44
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure 6.8 HP10X42 response: Lateral load fluctuations along step 2
The shape of the buckling of the FE model is also fairly matches the experimental behavior as
shown in Figures 6.7 and 6.8. The flanges were wrinkled the opposite way of the experimental
testing due the possible geometric imperfections which is not considered in the FE model. Due to
synchronized occurrence of the local buckling in the experimental testing and the drop of the lateral
load in the FE model, the calibration process is deemed adequate and representative for buckling
prediction of HP sections under prescribed loading scheme.
130
Figure 6.9 HP10X42 response: Buckling of column in the experimental testing
Figure 6.10 HP10X42 response: FE buckling mode
131
Figure 6.9 shows the lateral load-displacement hysteresis for specimen HP12x53. The lateral load
in the FE model experienced a drop at a displacement range of 1 in as can be seen from Figure
6.10. However, the experimental testing indicates that all flanges buckled at a displacement range
of (1.25 inch). This could also be attributed to the deterioration of concrete at the column base as
in the previous case. The figure indicates that the overall response of the FE model is at good
agreement with the experimental results and could be considered, combined with the outcomes of
the other specimen (HP10x42) calibration, an adequate representation to the experimental behavior
at stages prior to fracture. The model is not intended to simulate fracture and is deemed adequate
to model the local buckling before to crack initiation.

-50.8 0.0 50.8
30 133.44
FE Model
Experimental (Frosch et al., 2004)
20 88.96
Lateral Load (Kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
Buckling Limit
1.00958
-30 -133.44
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Figure 6.11 HP12X53 response: Load-deflection hysteresis at column top
132
25 mm in Amplitude
30 10
25
20
8
15
Lateral Load (kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

10
5 6
0
-5 4
-10
-15
2
-20
-25 1.1409
-30 0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure 6.12 HP12X53 response: Lateral load fluctuations along step 2
6.4 Pile selection, Boundary Conditions and Loading History
A total of 13 models were created by the FE software ABAQUS CAE. Nine sections oriented to
their weak bending axis and five oriented to their strong bending axis are selected to study the
effect of pile orientation as shown in Table 6.2. Five compact sections and four non-compact
sections were chosen to study the effect of flange-to-thickness effects on the displacement
capacity. These sections are chosen because of their wide popularity in IABs construction as per
Vermont design guidelines for IABs (2008). They have also high ultimate to yield strength ratio
and are believed to withstand severe cyclic loading and ensure full section plastic moment before
local buckling starts. Pile length is chosen to be 30 ft which is deemed enough to secure a fixed
133
end support during modelling. This depth is reached based on solving several LPILE models and
estimating the average depth beyond which no lateral displacement might develop.
TABLE 6.2 HP SECTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE PARAMETRIC STUDY
E =10.23* Area Axial Load

Pile b f / 2t f h/tw  p  0 .38
Fy (kips)
(in2)
HP8x36 9.16 14.2 Compact 10.6 106
HP10x42 12.0 18.9 Non-Compact 12.4 124
HP10x57 9.03 13.9 Compact 16.7 167
HP12x63 11.8 18.9 Non-Compact 18.4 184
HP12x74 10 16.1 Compact 21.8 218
HP12x84 8.97 14.2 Compact 24.6 246
HP14x89 11.9 18.5 Non-Compact 26.1 261
HP14x102 10.5 16.2 Non-Compact 30.1 301
HP14x117 9.25 14.2 Compact 34.4 344
*Based on E=29000 ksi and Fy=40 ksi
Soil effect on the pile is incorporated by attaching horizontal nonlinear springs equally spaced at
0.3 m (1 ft) intervals along the pile depth in the direction of the cyclic loading in case of weak axis
bending and in two perpendicular directions in case of strong axis bending to provide support for
lateral torsional buckling potential in the latter case. Fixed boundary conditions are imposed at the
pile end while the pile top is assumed free to displace in the direction of lateral displacement and
134
in the vertical direction. In the transverse direction, the displacement is restrained assuming
negligible lateral abutment movement. All three rotations were also restrained considering large
abutment stiffness as compared to pile section stiffness. A sustained axial compressive load is
applied at the pile head equal to (0.25f yAg), which stands for the maximum permissible axial load
on the pile per AASHTO standard specifications (2010). The Axial load values are tabulated in
Table 6.2. The yield stress of the steel is taken as 40 ksi for all sections. Figure 6.11 and Figure
6.12 show typical pile models for weak and strong axis bending respectively.
Figure 6.13 Typical pile idealization in parametric studies: weak axis
135
Figure 6.14 Typical pile idealization in parametric studies: strong axis
In this parametric study, an iterative procedure is adopted to predict the displacement at which the
local buckling of the HP section initiates. The displacement capacity of the section is identified as
the displacement at which the lateral load undergoes a substantial drop during 75 cycles, which
represents the expected lifespan of the bridge as per AASHTO LRFD (2012). It involves imposing
a separate constant value for displacement amplitude and observing the respective lateral load
fluctuation with time. Displacements amplitude starts at (0.25 inch) at (0.25 inch) increment until
buckling. For example, a displacement of 0.25 in is applied for 75 cycles while observing the
corresponding lateral load fluctuations, if a drop occurred, the (0.25 inch) will be the displacement
capacity, otherwise displacement will be increased to (0.5 inch) and the process is repeated all over
again by cycling 75 times and so on until the intended displacement is predicted. This procedure
is adopted to study each displacement effect individually and avoiding accumulation of the plastic
136
deformations resulting from successive overlapping of displacement amplitudes to one another in
case of using increasing displacement scheme, as the procedure seen in the experimental testing
by Frosch et al. (2004).
6.5 Soil-Pile Interaction
The soil effect on the pile is incorporated by attaching a set of nonlinear springs to the pile along
its entire depth. P-y curves method is employed to compute the force-deflection relationships for
the soil springs. LPILE (Ensoft Inc., 2015) software is utilized to compute pressure-displacement
relationships for points inside soil medium along pile depth and they were converted into force-
deflection relationships which are connected to the FE nodes at the soil-pile interface. A set of p-
y curves for each spring is required to simulate the soil effect on the pile under lateral loading. P-
y data is computed according the soil type then they are converted into force-displacement set by
multiplying the pressure by the respective tributary length of each spring. Each spring along the
depth of the pile is modelled as a connector element available in ABAQUS with elastic behavior
and corresponding connector section for that depth. Connector elements in Abaqus operate as
nonlinear springs with combined tension/compression behavior. However, these connector
elements are unable to model tension-only or compression only mechanism. In laterally loaded
piles, soil springs are compressed against the pile when the pile moves towards the soil and
supposedly these springs detached from the pile as it moves away from the soil to prevent soil
tension. To overcome this inevitable feature of connector elements in Abaqus, only one spring is
used to represent soil effects for both sides of the soil assuming a compression spring in case of
pile movement towards soil and tension spring in case of the soil moving away from soil to
compensate the compression spring on the other side of the pile, so it works as reversed tension
on the same spring.
137
In this study, a medium sand is used as the soil around the pile. The medium sand is selected
because piles in IAB is constructed with predrilled holes at the top portion of the pile filled with
loose sand which over cycling process, the loose sand condenses into a stiffness close to medium
sand (Dicleli and Albhaisi, 2003). The following properties of the medium sand are used in
calculating the p-y curves: angle of internal friction is 35, unit weight of the soil  is 100 and soil
modulus kpy is 90 (Lpile manual).
6.6 Buckling Failure Criterion
Buckling of the piles under combined axial compressive and lateral cyclic loading is identified by
a substantial decrease in the lateral load values, often characterized by a sudden drop of the lateral
load oscillations with time. Fogarty and Al-Tawil (2016) showed that lateral load reduction is the
dominant criterion among other failure criterion such as bending moment or axial compressive
load reduction. Reduction of the lateral load is also observed by Frosch et al. (2004) as local
buckling commences in the experimental testing. Therefore, the reduction in the lateral load
capacity during cycling is considered as the governing failure criterion in identifying the local
buckling initiation. Many researchers showed that 10-15% reduction in the lateral load can be
considered as the failure point of the section under cyclic load. In the current study, most of the
section underwent a local flange buckling at or less 10% reduction ratio.
138
6.7 Results
Table 6.3 reports buckling capacities, average axial strain at buckling, number of cycles for
buckling, and displacement capacities for the HP sections considered in the current study. The
displacement capacities are the buckling capacity less 0.25 inch, which in this case corresponds to
the previous cycling displacement at which the lateral load sustained its value along 75 cycles. The
axial strain at buckling represents the maximum axial strain induced in the flange tip at the pile-
abutment interface (pile head).
TABLE 6.3 DISPLCEMENT CAPACITIES OF A SET OF HP SECTIONS EMBEDDED IN A

MEDIUM SAND
No. of
Pile Axis b plastic
@ b cycles to b/plastic /y c (in)
Designation orientation (in) (in)
buckling
HP8x36 weak 2.25 0.01628 40 0.6 3.75 11.8 2
HP10x42 weak 1.5 0.01073 31 0.6 2.5 7.8 1.25
HP10x57 weak 2.5 0.01671 49 0.69 3.62 12.1 2.25
HP12x63 weak 1.75 0.01295 33 0.67 2.6 9.4 1.5
HP12x74 weak 2.25 0.01485 50 0.72 3.13 10.8 2
HP12x84 weak 2.5 0.0115 52 0.76 3.29 8.3 2.25
HP14x89 weak 1.75 0.01193 46 0.73 2.39 8.7 1.5
HP14x102 weak 2.25 0.01423 49 0.78 2.88 10.3 2
HP14x117 weak 3 0.01814 43 0.83 3.6 13.2 2.75
HP8x36 strong 1 0.0012 31 0.68 1.47 0.86 0.75
HP10x42 strong 0.75 0.00103 22 0.68 1.1 0.75 0.5
HP10x57 strong 1 0.00092 57 0.78 1.28 0.67 0.75
HP12x74 strong 1 0.00085 50 0.82 1.22 0.62 0.75
HP14x89 strong 1 0.00103 28 0.85 1.18 0.75 0.75
139
Figure 6.13 and Figure 6.14 show the load-displacement hysteresis behavior for HP 12x63 section
oriented to the weak axis and the corresponding lateral load fluctuations with step time. Graphs
for other HP sections can be found in Appendix B. A graphical procedure is employed to extract
the strain at buckling utilizing Origin Lab software to accurately predict the maximum and
minimum values for strain amplitude and an average absolute value is considered.
Figure 6.15 shows illustrates the graphical procedure to determine the strain at buckling
displacement. Flange tip at the pile top end or point of flange wrinkling are the potential locations
for maximum strain induced within the section, those locations were used to collect buckling
strains. Figure 6.16 depicts buckling ductility ratios (strain at buckling to yield strain) for all
sections in this study. It is obvious that buckling ductility in weak axis bending is far exceeding
the one in strong axis. Moreover, for the same orientation (weak axis) there are significant
variations exists among ductility ratios, and they are independent of slenderness ratios or flexural
rigidities. Number of cycles to buckling is predicted in the same way by constructing a vertical
line at the point of lateral load drop on the abscissa (time step) and the number of cycles is
determined by proportioning its value from the total number of cycles (Refer to Figure 6.14).
Failure mode of the sections was local flange only or flange and web buckling at the pile head.
Displacements at buckling ranged from 1.5 inches to 3 inches for weak axis bending; the compact
sections achieved higher capacities than noncompact sections. The strong axis bending capacities
were in the range of 1 inch without significant effect of the compactness criteria on the buckling
capacity. Experimental testing conducted by Frosch (2004, 2011) has demonstrated same
outcomes regarding weak axis-oriented sections which surpassed those oriented to their strong axis
bending. For instance, section H8x36 in weak axis bending achieved 2.25-inch buckling
displacement whereas the same section buckled at 1.5-inch displacement in case of strong axis
140
bending. Moreover, the soil restraining effect that has been considered in the computational models
has an adverse effect on the displacement capacity of the sections if compared to barely tested
columns without soil.

-50.8 0.0 50.8
50 222.40
40 177.92
30 133.44
Lateral Load (Kips)
20 88.96
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
-30 -133.44
-40 HP12x63 Weak Axis -177.92

Displacement Amplitude =1.75 inch
-50 -222.40
-2 -1 0 1 2
Figure 6.15 Load-deflection relationship for HP12x63 weak axis
141
1.44
250
33 Cycles
200
183
150 166.5
Lateral Load (kN)
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200 HP 12x63 Weak Axis

44 mm (1.75 in) Amplitude
-250
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure 6.16 Lateral load fluctuation with time for HP12x63 weak axis
142
0.02
0.01114
0.00
Lograithmic Strain, y
-0.01475
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
HP 12x63 Weak Axis

1.75 inch Amplitude
-0.08
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure 6.17 variation of strain with step time for HP 12x63 at buckling displacement
Experimental displacements predicted by Frosch et al. (2004) represent the first segment in the
pile equivalent cantilever model as presented in a previous section. The second segment (bounded
by the infection point and the point of fixity in the equivalent cantilever) has a lateral displacement
almost equivalent to the first segment at local buckling level as depicted in Figure 6.17. These two
displacements were added up to obtain the total displacement at the pile head as shown with the
FE results in Table 6.4. Comparing the FE results with experimental total displacement refer that
the experimental displacement exceeds the FE value for the same section and orientation. The
reduction in the FE results is due to inclusion of soil effect which curbed the pile flexibility and
triggered the local buckling sooner. The strain computed by Frosch et al. (2004) is in the order of
0.03 at buckling and the average corresponding ductility was 20, which are also higher than the
computed counterparts in FE results by the order of at least 2. This clearly indicates that the soil
143
effect reduces the displacement capacity of the pile section to the half or more and a predrilled
hole filled with sand or flexible material within the equivalent cantilever length of the pile is
strongly recommended.
14
12
10
8
/y
0
HP8x36W
HP10x42W
HP10x57W
HP12x63W
HP12x74W
HP12x84W
HP14x89W
HP14x102W
HP14x117W
HP8x36S
HP10x42S
HP10x57S
HP12x74S
HP14x89S
Figure 6.18 Buckling ductility ratios for HP sections in medium sand
144
Figure 6.19 Typical cantilever pile model in IABs (Frosch et al., 2004)
TABLE 6.4 FE vs Frosch et al. (2004, 2011) BUCKLING CAPACITES
Buckling Experimental
Section Orientation
Displacement (Frosch, 2004, 2011)
HP8x36 weak 2.25 4

HP10x42 weak 1.5 2.5
HP14x89 weak 1.75 3.5
HP8x36 strong 1 3
145
Displacement at full plastic moment is predicted following a trial-and-error procedure utilizing
program Lpile. The lateral displacement is varied in the program until the corresponding moment
reached the plastic moment capacity (Mp). It is obvious that the buckling displacement is 2.5-3.5
times the plastic moment displacement in case of weak axis bending and on the order of 1.5 the
plastic moment displacement in strong axis bending as can be seen in Table 6.3.
Buckling strain in the weak axis is between 7 and 13 times yield strain, an average value of 10
times yield strain is considered for buckling. The strong axis ductility is less than 1, this indicates
that piles buckles before arriving the yield strain which is attributed to out of plane bending or
lateral torsional buckling.
6.8 Effect of Soil Types Surrounding Piles
Six soil types with different stiffness properties were selected to investigate the effect of soil type
on the displacement capacity of the piles. The sandy soil types are: loose sand, medium sand, and
dense sand. The clayey soil types are: soft clay, medium clay and stiff clay. The sand and clay
properties are respectively presented in Table 6.5 and 6.6. P-y curves are constructed for all soil
types using LPILE software and nonlinear springs are generated depending on the guidelines
presented earlier chapter. Two pile section were selected for the investigation process; HP10X57
and HP12X84, oriented to their weak axis. These piles are compact sections for both A36 and
A575 steel grades (Azizinamini et al., 2015)
146
TABLE 6.5 SAND PROPERTIES USED IN THE STUDY
Soil Type Angle of Friction,  Unit Weight,  lb/ft3 Kpy, lb./in3
Loose Sand 30 90 25
Medium Sand 35 100 90
Dense Sand 40 115 225
TABLE 6.6 CLAY PROPERTIES USED IN THE STUDY
Undrained Shear Unit Weight,

Soil Type 50 Kpy, lb./in3
Strength*, Cu, (lb./ft2)  lb./ft3
Soft clay 500 73 0.02 30
Medium clay 750 85 0.01 100
Stiff clay 1500 108 0.005 500
Table 6.7 show the displacement capacities for the cases presented above. It is clear from the
values that the displacement capacity of the section is reversely proportional to the soil stiffness
for both of sand and clay. This is a further confirmation that the soil stiffness has an adverse effect
of the flexibility of the pile and displacement capacity of the pile. Also, the clayey soil outperforms
the sandy soil in allowing the HP piles additional displacement capacities.
147
TABLE 6.7 BUCKLING DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS FOR VARIOUS SOIL TYPES
Buckling Displacement (inch)

Soil Type HP10X57 HP12X84
Loose sand 2.75 3
Medium Sand 2.5 2.5
Dense Sand 1.75 2
Soft Clay 4.5 5
Medium Clay 3.25 4
Stiff Clay 2 3
6.9 Comparison with Abendroth and Greimann (1989) Method
To get more insight about the predicted FE results, a comparison with analytical procedure
suggested by Abendroth and Greimann (1989) is presented herein. This method assumed an
inelastic model to quantify the displacement capacity of steel piles in IABs. The method involves
moment-rotation capacity of the steel section according the AISC standard specifications (1984)
which is three times the plastic rotational capacity. Based on structural mechanic principles, the
researchers arrive at the following equation to estimate the displacement capacity of HP piles in
IABs:
   p 0 .6  2.25 C i  6.3
Where:
M pL2
p  6.4
D EI
148
19 b f Fy
Ci   6.5
6 60t f
E: modulus of elasticity of steel. Taken as 29000 ksi in the current study.
I: moment of inertia of the cross section.
D: slope-deflection factor = 6 for fixed-end cantilever.
Mp: Plastic moment capacity of the section =F y Z.
L: The depth of the equivalent cantilever
bf: Flange width.
tf: Flange thickness.
Equivalent cantilever length is predicted using LPILE software for the set of HP section under
consideration as can be seen from the displacement profile of the HP section in Figure 6.18, which
has been established using LPILE. It is obvious that piles having larger sections exhibits deeper
point of fixity or equivalent cantilever.
149
-12.7 0.0 12.7 25.4 38.1 50.8 63.5 76.2
0 0.00
-5 -1.52
-10 -3.05
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
-15 HP8x36 -4.57

HP10x42
HP10x57
-20 HP12x63 -6.10
HP12x74
HP12x84
-25 HP14x89 -7.62
HP14x102
HP14x117
-30 -9.14
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 6.20 Lateral displacement profiles of HP sections at buckling
Table 6.8 shows the displacement capacities of HP sections, computed by Abendroth et al. (1989)
and FE methods. It is evident that FE exhibits slightly smaller displacement capacities as
compared to the analytical method for weak axis bending. The difference is attributed to the
approximation associated with inelastic rotation assumption in the analytical method. For strong
axis bending, the analytical method maintained the same displacement capacities as the weak axis,
whereas the FE results had significantly decreased. This is attributed to the failure of including
lateral torsional buckling effect in the analytical model in case of strong axis bending.
150
TABLE 6.8 COMPARISON BETWEEN ABENDROTH ET AL. (1989) AND FEM
Section L  c b
Orientation Ci Z (in3) I (in4) Mp p
Designation (in) Abendroth, 1989) FEM
HP8x36 weak 108 1 15.2 40.3 608 1.011 2.88 2.25
HP10x42 weak 97.2 0.63 21.8 71.7 872 0.66 1.33 1.5
HP10x57 weak 126 1 30.3 101 1212 1.095 3.12 2.5
HP12x63 weak 136.8 0.69 38.7 153 1548 1.09 2.34 1.75
HP12x74 weak 140.4 1 46.6 186 1864 1.14 3.24 2.25
HP12x84 weak 144 1 53.2 213 2128 1.19 3.39 2.5
HP14x89 weak 158.4 0.65 67.7 326 2708 1.198 2.46 1.75
HP14x102 weak 162 0.95 78.8 380 3152 1.25 3.44 2.25
HP14x117 weak 165.6 1 91.4 443 3656 1.3 3.71 3
HP8x36 strong 129.6 1 33.6 119 1344 1.09 3.11 0.75
HP10x42 strong 118.8 0.63 48.3 210 1932 0.75 1.51 0.75
HP10x57 strong 151.2 1 66.5 294 2660 1.189 3.39 0.75
HP12x74 strong 172.8 1 105 569 4200 1.27 3.6 0.75
HP14x89 strong 187.2 0.65 146 904 5840 1.3 2.68 0.75
151
6.10 Integral Abutment Bridge Length
The maximum length of an integral abutment bridge can be computed according on the
displacement capacity of HP sections. A simple thermal expression equation is utilized herein to
quantify the maximum length. The equation involves lateral displacement of the abutment at the
deck level. The abutments in IABs are often designed with a relatively small height (stub) to
alleviate their high induced bending stresses, this implies the abutment rather displace horizontally
with little or no tilting. Abutment displacement at the deck level is conservatively assumed
equivalent to the pile head displacement (displacement capacity).
The maximum length of IAB can be estimated from the following equation derived from the basic
thermal expansion of a bar:
2c
Lmax  6.6
  T
Where:  is the AASHTO temperature factor,  is the coefficient of thermal expansion which is
assumed as 6 × 10–6/°F (10 × 10–6/°C) and 11.7 × 10–6/°C (6.5 × 10–6/°F) for concrete and for steel,
respectively. AASHTO LRFD (2012) bridge design specifications were considered for
temperature ranges. Steel bridges temperature taken as 60°F and 75°F for moderate and cold
climates, respectively, while concrete bridge temperature is taken as 35°F and 40°F for moderate
and cold climates, respectively,
Table 6.9 presents maximum length limits for steel and concrete bridges, for both of cold and
moderate climates in the United Sates. It is obvious that maximum length ranges from 108 – 298
m for steel bridges and 220-554 m for concrete bridges depending the weather and pile section.
These results exceed the maximum IAB limitations of most department of transportation in
152
United States. Also, it slightly exceeds the maximum length of integral abutment bridge ever
built, which located at Verona, Italy with a length of 400 m. However, most of design bureaus
and construction companies avoid higher length due to lack of rational approaches to predict the
length limits. More lengths can be achieved by allowing additional flexibility to the pile head by
providing hinge details to the pile-abutment connectivity or reduce soil stiffness around the pile.
TABLE 6.9 MAXIMUM LENGTH OF INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGES

Steel bridge Concrete bridge
Moderate Cold Moderate Cold
Section Displacement Capacity
Climate Climate Climate Climate
HP8x36 2 530 424 985 862
HP10x42 1.25 319 255 593 519
HP10x57 2.25 538 430 999 874
HP12x63 1.5 353 282 656 574
HP12x74 2 452 361 839 734
HP12x84 2.25 502 401 932 816
HP14x89 1.5 326 261 607 531
HP14x102 2 426 340 791 692
HP14x117 2.75 567 454 1054 922
153
6.11 Summary and Conclusions
Displacement capacities of a series of HP sections are predicted using the finite element package
ABAQUS. Two pile orientations are studied to investigate whichever can provide better
performance in employment in the IAB construction. Displacement capacities for the pile
embedded in medium sand is reported to be used by designers as a reference. Six soil types are
also studied investigated to examine effect of the soil stiffness on the displacement capacities. The
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Weak axis pile orientation of HP sections provides displacement capacities 2-3 times
higher than strong axis orientation. The small stiffness associated with weak axis
orientation provides more flexibility to the section during cyclic loading.
2. Buckling displacement is on an average of 3 and 1.5 times the plastic moment capacity of
HP section for weak and strong axis bending, respectively.
3. Buckling of HP sections under combined axial and lateral cyclic displacement occurs at a
strain in the order of 10 times yield strain in average for weak axis orientation. For strong
axis orientation, the section buckles before or at yield strain due to out-of-plane bending.
4. The stiffness of the soil is reversely proportional to the displacement capacity of the pile.
For example, loose sand provides higher displacement capacities than dense sand. The idea
of providing predrilled holes at the top part of the pile is greatly encouraged in IAB
construction. In general, clay outperforms sand in granting pile better flexibility.
5. Depending on the size of the HP section used as a pile in construction, maximum length of
steel integral abutment bridges is ranging between 250 m and 500 m for cold and moderate
climates, respectively. In concrete integral abutment bridges, the maximum length could
be doubled, in a range of 500 m to 1000 m, for moderate and cold climates, respectively.
154
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn based on the study in this dissertation:
1. The CEB-90-90 shrinkage model is the most representative model for the concrete behavior
over the monitoring time.
2. The deck represents a substantial contribution to the shrinkage effects on the concrete in IAB;
however, prestressed girders have little or no shrinkage influence on the bridge response.
3. The Rankine earth pressure theory outperforms other theories in capturing the abutment-
backfill interaction behavior.
4. The distribution of the temperature along the depth of the superstructure is important in
simulating the displacement amplitude of the abutment, and the best simple distribution over
the entire depth was found by giving full temperature change for the deck and half of the
temperature change to the girders. Other distributions either over- or underestimate the
displacement amplitude.
5. Abutment displacement ratcheting (deck shortening) over time occurs due to the restraining
effect of the soil towards the abutment during the expansion phase of the bridge. The
displacement induced in passive cases (bridge expansion) is less than the displacement in
active cases (bridge contraction); this disparity in displacements leads to an accumulative
difference in the net response which is responsible for the overall inward shortening of the
bridge.
6. The change in the abutment displacement follows a linear trend, which validates the
employment of a linear thermal expansion equation in estimating lateral thermal bridge
displacement.
155
7. The difference between the equation and the FE model displacements is very small with short
bridge lengths but grows significantly larger as the bridge length increases.
8. Neither the pile size or pile orientation nor soil type or soil stiffness have a significant impact
on the abutment displacement.
9. The soil stiffness has more impact than the pile orientation on the pile displacement.
10. The pile stresses are proportional to the soil stiffness and inversely proportional to the pile
stiffness.
11. Weak axis orientation lead to higher stresses than strong axis orientation along the pile depth,
which is attributed to the small stiffness of the weak axis as compared to strong axis. The
maximum stress occurs at the second segment of the pile (bounded by the first inflection point
and the second infection point). The maximum stress is not induced in the pile-abutment
interface because of the rotation of the abutment, which provide some release of fixity and
reduced stresses at the pile head.
12. The soil stiffness has a small influence on the deck stresses. However, the reduction of soil
stiffness around the pile can contribute to mitigating part of the deck stresses.
13. Reducing the stiffness of the soil around the pile can contribute in mitigating the stresses on
bridge girders.
14. Weak axis pile orientation of HP sections provides displacement capacities 2-3 times higher
than strong axis orientation. The small stiffness associated with weak axis orientation provides
more flexibility to the section during cyclic loading.
15. Buckling displacement is an average of 3 and 1.5 times the plastic moment capacity of HP
section for weak and strong axis bending, respectively.
156
16. Buckling of HP sections under combined axial and lateral cyclic displacement occurs at a
strain on the order of 10 times the average yield strain for weak axis orientation. For strong
axis orientation, the section buckles before or at yield strain due to out-of-plane bending.
17. The stiffness of the soil is inversely proportional to the displacement capacity of the pile. For
example, loose sand provides higher displacement capacities than dense sand. The idea of
providing predrilled holes at the top part of the pile is greatly encouraged in IAB construction.
In general, clay outperforms sand in granting a pile better flexibility.
18. Depending on the size of the HP section used as a pile in construction, the maximum length
of steel IABs is 250 m and 500 m for cold and moderate climates, respectively. In concrete
IABs, the maximum length can be doubled to 500 m to 1000 m for moderate and cold climates,
respectively.
7.2 Recommendations for Future Work
1. Expanding the calibration process to incorporate more bridge types and pile sections will
permit more insight about the behavior of integral abutment bridges. Also, more responses can
be studied, including bridge transverse displacement, abutment rotation, pile curvature, and
girder stresses and strains.
2. Parametric studies can be expanded to include the effect of backfill soil stiffness on bridge
various responses. Bridge skew effects on the bridge response can also be highlighted by
considering a three-dimensional finite element model.
3. A pile buckling analysis may be conducted by assuming solid modelling instead of p-y curves
for the soil surrounding piles. In this method, the effect of local buckling on displacement
157
capacities will be obvious. This method is very expensive in terms of computational time for
the solution, but it is very promising in terms of the outcomes.
158
CITED REFERNCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO):
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 5th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2010.
2. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition. Washington, DC,
USA, 2002.
3. Abendroth, R.E., Greimann, L.F. and Ebner, P.B.: Abutment Pile Design for Jointless
Bridges. Journal of Structure Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 11, 2914-2929, 1989.
4. Abendroth, R.E. and Greimann, L.F.: Field Testing of Integral Abutment Bridge. Final
Report, Iowa Department of Transportation Project HR-399. 2005.
5. ACI 209: Guide for Modeling and Calculating Shrinkage and Creep in Hardened Concrete.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 209, Farmington Hills, Michigan. 2008.
6. Alampalli, S. and Yannotti, A.: In-Service Performance of Integral Bridges and Jointless
Deck. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol.
1624, pp. 1-7. 1998.
7. American Petroleum Institute (API): Recommended practice for planning, designing, and
constructing fixed offshore platforms-working stress design. 20th ed., API RP2A-WSD,
Washington, D.C. 1993
8. Azizinamini, A, Yakel, A., Sherafati, A., Taghinezhad, R., and Gull, J.H.: Flexible Pile
Head in Jointless Bridges: Design Provisions for H-Piles in Cohesive Soils” Journal of
Bridge Engineering, Vol. 21, Issue 3. 2016.
9. Bertero, V., and Popov, E.: Effect of Large Alternating Strains of Steel Beams” J. Struct.
Eng., 91(1), 1-12. 1965.
159
10. Bhowmik, S.K.: Three-dimensional non-linear finite element analysis of laterally loaded
piles in clay. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
1992.
11. Brown, D.A. and Shie, C.: Three-dimensional finite element model of laterally loaded
piles. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol 10, Issue 1, 1990, Pages 59-79, 1990.
12. Burke Jr., M.P.: The design of integral concrete bridges. Concrete International, Vol. 15,
June, pp. 37-42, 1993.
13. Civjan, S.A., Kalayci, E., Quinn, B.H., Brena, S.F., and Allen, C.A.: Observed integral
abutment bridge substructure response. Engineering Structures, 56 (2013) 1177–1191,
2013.
14. Das, B.M.: Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Cengage Learning Engineering; 5 th
Ed., 2011.
15. Dassault Systems: Abaqus CAE user’s manual. 6.14, 2014.
16. Desai, C., and Zaman, M.: Advanced Geotechnical Engineering: Soil-Structure Interaction
using Computer and Material Models. CRC press, 2013.
17. Dicleli, M., and Albhaisi, S.M.: Maximum length of integral bridges supported on steel H-
piles driven in sand. Engineering Structures, 25(2003), 1491–1504, 2003.
18. Dicleli, M., and Albhaisi, S.M.: Effect of cyclic thermal loading on the performance of
steel H-piles in integral bridges with stub-abutments. J. Constr. Steel Res., 60(2), 161–182,
2004.
19. Duncan, J.M. and Mokwa, R.L.: Passive Earth Pressure: Theories and Tests. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No.3, 2001.
160
20. Elkady, A., and Lignos, D.: Analytical investigation of the cyclic behavior and plastic
hinge formation in deep wide-flange steel beam columns. Bull. Earthquake Eng., 13, 1097–
1118, 2015.
21. Ensoft, Inc.: LPILE v2015 for Windows-A Program for the Analysis of Piles and Drilled
Shafts Under Lateral Loads. Available from: <http://www.ensoft.com>.
22. Fang, H.: Foundation Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition, Edited by H. Y., Fang, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA, 1991.
23. Faraji, S., Ting, J.M., Crovo, D.S., and Ernst, H.: Nonlinear Analysis of Integral Bridges:
Finite Element Model. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
127, No.5, 454-461, 2001.
24. Fennema, J.F., Laman, J.A., and Linzell, D.J.: Predicted and Measured Response of an
Integral Abutment Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10 Issue 6, 2005.
25. Fogarty, J., and El-Tawil, S.: Collapse Resistance of Steel Columns under Combined Axial
and Lateral Loading. Journal of Structure Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 1., 2016.
26. Frosch, R.J., Chovichien, V., Durbin, K.O., and Fedroff, D.: Jointless and Smoother
Bridges: Behavior and Design of Piles. Joint Transportation Research Program,
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/24, 488 pp., 2004.
27. Frosch, R.J., Kreger, M.E., and Talbott, A.M.: Earthquake Resistance of Integral Abutment
Bridges. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/11. Joint Transportation Research Program,
Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
2009.
161
28. Frosch, R.J., and Lovell, M.D.: Long-Term Behavior of Integral Abutment Bridges.
Publication FHWA/ IN/JTRP-2011/16. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana
Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2011.
29. Girton, D.D., Hawkinson, T.R., and Greimann, L.F.: Validation of Design
Recommendations for Integral Abutment Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 7., 1991.
30. Greimann, L.F., Yang, P.S., and Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.: Design of Piles for integral
Abutment Bridges. Final Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Research
Institute, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, August 1984, 260 pp.
31. Greimann, L.F., Yang, P.S., and Wolde-Tinsae, A.M.: Nonlinear Analysis of Integral
Abutment Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 10, 1986, pp.
2263-2280, 1986.
32. Huang, J., Shield, C.K., and French, C.E.W.: Parametric Study of Concrete Integral
Abutment Bridges. Journal of Bridge Eng., 13(5), 511-526, 2008.
33. Kaufman, E., Metrovich, B., and Pense, A.: Characterization of cyclic inelastic strain
behavior on properties of A572 Gr. 50 and A913 rolled sections. ATLSS Rep. No. 01-13,
National Center for Engineering Research on Advanced Technology for Large Structural
Systems, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA., 2001.
34. Khasawneh, Y.A.: Soil-structure interaction of integral abutment bridges. Ph.D. thesis,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN., 2014.
35. Khodair, Y.A., and Hassiotis, S.: Analysis of Soil-Pile Interaction in Integral Abutment.
Journal of Computers and Geotechnics, 32, 201-209, 2005.
162
36. Kim, W., and Laman, J.: Seven-Year Field Monitoring of Four Integral Abutment
Bridges. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2012.
37. Koh, S., and Stephens, R.: Mean Stress Effects on Low Cycle Fatigue for a High Strength
Steel. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct., 14(4):413–428, 1991.
38. Kunin, J., and Alampalli, S.: Integral Abutment Bridges: Current Practice in United States
and Canada. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Volume 14, Issue 3,
2000.
39. Lawver, A., French, C., and Shield, C.: Field Performance of Integral Abutment Bridge.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.
1740, pp. 108-117, 2000.
40. Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J.L.: Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge University
press, 1990.
41. Matlock, H.: Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 1204, 1970.
42. Meyerhof, G.G.: Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, SM1, pp. 1-12, 1956.
43. Muqtadir, A., and Desai, C.S.: Three‐dimensional analysis of a pile‐group foundation.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics, Vol 10 Issue
1, 1986.
44. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP): Manuals for the design of
bridge foundations. Barker, R.M., Duncan, J.M., Rojiani, K.B., Ooi, P.S.K., Tan, C.K. and
Kim, S.G., Rep. 343, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1991.
163
45. Prakash, S., and Sharma, H.D.: Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice. John Wiley &
Sons, 1990.
46. Pugasap, K., Kim, W., and Laman, J.A.: Long-Term Response Prediction of Integral
Abutment Bridges. Journal of Bridge Eng., 14(2), 129-139, 2009.
47. Quinn, B.H., and Civjan S.A.: Parametric Study on Effects of Pile Orientation in Integral
Abutment Bridges. J. Bridge Eng., 22(4), 2017.
48. Rankine, W.J.M.: On the Stability of Loose Earth. Philosophical Trans., Royal Soc.,
London, 1857.
49. Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D.: Analysis of Lateral Loaded Piles in Sand.
Offshore Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, Paper No. OTC 2080, 1974.
50. Reese, L.C., and Welch, R.C.: Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in Stiff Clay. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT7, pp. 633-649, 1975.
51. Reese, L.C., and Van Impe, W. F.: Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading.
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001.
52. Rollins, K.M., and Cole, R.T.: Cyclic Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Cap and Backfill.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9, 2006.
53. Skempton, A.W.: The Bearing Capacity of Clays. Proc. Building Research Congress, pp.
180-189, 1951.
54. Terzaghi, K.: Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction. Geotechnique, Vol 5, 297-
326, 1955.
55. Trochanis, A., Bielak, J., and Christiano, P.: Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Study of Piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(3), 429-447, 1991.
164
56. Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans): Integral Abutment Bridge Design
Guidelines. 2nd Ed., Montpelier, Vermont, 2008.
57. Welch, R.C., and Reese, L.C.: Laterally loaded behavior of drilled shafts. Research Report
3-5-65-89. Center for Highway Research. University of Texas, Austin, 1972.
58. Wigle, V.R., and Fahnestock, L.A.: Buckling-restrained braced frame connection
performance. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 66 (1), 65-74, 2010.
165
APPENDIX A
Figure A.1 Pile Finite Element Model
Figure A.2 Lateral Displacements in the Pile Model
166
Figure A.3 Bridge Finite Element Model
167
Python code to generate abutment springs (Node numbers are changeable according the
problem)
1 from part import *

2 from material import *
3 from section import *
4 from assembly import *
5 from step import *
6 from interaction import *
7 from load import *
8 from mesh import *
9 from optimization import *
10 from job import *
11 from sketch import *
12 from visualization import *
13 from connectorBehavior import *
14 L=0
15 v=[693,699,709,717,1067,1115,1752,1753,1754,1755,1756,1757,1758,
16 1759,1760,1761,1762,1763,1764,1765,1766,1767,1768,1769,1770,
17 1771,1772,1773,1775,1777,1778,1779,1780,1781,1782,1783,1784,
18 1785,1786,1787,1788,1789,1790,1791,1792,1793]
19 for i in range(1751,1797): # add 46 to the last loop value
20 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.WirePolyLine(mergeType=IMPRINT,
meshable=
21 False, points=((
22 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.instances['Abutment-1'].vertices[v[L]],
23 None), ))
24 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.features.changeKey(fromName='Wire-
'+str(i),
25 toName='Wire-'+str(i))
26 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.Set(edges=
27 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.edges.getSequenceFromMask(('[#1 ]', ),
)
28 , name='Wire-'+str(i)+'-Set-1')
29 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.SectionAssignment(region=
30 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.sets['Wire-'+str(i)+'-Set-1'],
sectionName=
31 'Backfill_14')
32 L=L+1
168
Python code to generate pile springs (Node numbers are changeable according the problem)
1 from part import *

2 from material import *
3 from section import *
4 from assembly import *
5 from step import *
6 from interaction import *
7 from load import *
8 from mesh import *
9 from optimization import *
10 from job import *
11 from sketch import *
12 from visualization import *
13 from connectorBehavior import *
14 # springs
15 k=0
16 L=0
17 j=1850 #add 22 in the next pile
18
v=[8,2,17,23,37,41,53,61,65,77,81,93,101,105,117,121,133,141,145,157,161,173,
181,185,197,
201,210,218]
19 for i in range(1853,1881): # add 22 to the last loop value
20 if k > 22: # springs after depth 22 will be the same 22 ft
21 k=22
22 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.WirePolyLine(mergeType=IMPRINT,
meshable=
23 False, points=((None,
24 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.instances['Pile Sell
R-1-lin-10-1'].vertices[v[L]]),
25 ))
26 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.features.changeKey(fromName='Wire-
'+str(i),
27 toName='Wire-'+str(i))
28 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.Set(edges=
29 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.edges.getSequenceFromMask(('[#1 ]', ),
)
30 , name='Wire-'+str(i)+'-Set-1')
31 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.SectionAssignment(region=
32 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.sets['Wire-'+str(i)+'-Set-1'],
sectionName=
33 'Pile_spring_'+str(k))
34 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.sectionAssignments[j].getSet()
35 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.ConnectorOrientation(localCsys1=
36 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.datums[19734], region=
37 mdb.models['Model-1'].rootAssembly.allSets['Wire-'+str(i)+'-Set-1'])
38 k=k+1
39 L=L+1
40 j=j+1
169
APPENDIX B

-50.8 0.0 50.8
30 133.44
20 88.96
Lateral Load (Kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
HP8x36 Weak Axis
Displacement Amplitude = 57 mm (2.25 in)
-30 -133.44
-2 -1 0 1 2
Figure B.1a. Load-deflection relationship for HP8x36 weak axis

1.54
150
40 cycles
100 101
89.9
Lateral Load (kN)
50
-50
-100
HP 8x36 Weak Axis
57 mm (2.25 in) Amplitude)
-150
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure B.1b. Lateral load fluctuation with time for HP8x36 weak axis
170
-50.8 0.0 50.8
50 222.40
40 177.92
30 133.44
Lateral Load (Kips)

20 88.96
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
-30 -133.44
-40 HP12x63 Weak Axis -177.92

Displacement Amplitude =1.75 inch
-50 -222.40
-2 -1 0 1 2
1.44
250
33 Cycles
200
183
150 166.5
Lateral Load (kN)
100
50
-50
-100
-150

44 mm (1.75 in) Amplitude
-250
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
171
-50.8 0.0 50.8
60 266.88
50 222.40
40 177.92
30 133.44
Lateral Load (Kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

20 88.96
10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
-30 -133.44
-40 -177.92
-50 HP12x84 Weak Axis -222.40
Displacement Amplitude =63.5 mm (2.5 in)
-60 -266.88
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(a) (b)
1.69
300 52 Cycles
242.4
200 227.5
Lateral Load (kN)
100
-100
-200
HP 12x84 Weak Axis

-300 63.5 mm (2.5 in) Amplitude
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
172
-50.8 0.0 50.8
100 444.80
80 355.84
60 266.88
Lateral Load (Kips)

40 177.92
Lateral Load (kN)

20 88.96
0 0.00
-20 -88.96
-40 -177.92
-60 -266.88
-80 HP14x117 Weak Axis -355.84

Displacement Amplitude = 76 mm (3 in)
-100 -444.80
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(a) (b)
1.58
43 cycles
400 380.8
346
Lateral Load (kN)
200
-200

76 mm (3 in) Amplitude
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
173
-50.8 0.0 50.8
50 222.40
40 177.92
30 133.44
Lateral Load (Kips)

20 88.96
Lateral Load (kN)

10 44.48
0 0.00
-10 -44.48
-20 -88.96
-30 -133.44
-40 HP8x36 Strong Axis -177.92

Displacement Amplitude = 25.4 mm (1 inch)
-50 -222.40
-1 0 1
Figure B.5a. Load-deflection relationship for HP8x36 strong axis
300
1.43
32 cycles
200 204.2
195.6
Lateral Load (kN)
100
-100
-200
HP 8x36 Strong Axis
25.4 mm (1 inch) Amplitude
-300
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Step Time
Figure B.5b. Lateral load fluctuation with time for HP 8x36 strong axis
174
View publication stats
VITA
NAME: Nassr Noori Ibrahim Salman
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf,

Iraq, 1998
Master of Science, Civil Engineering, University of Technology,

Baghdad, Iraq, 2001
Doctor of Philosophy, Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at

Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 2018
TEACHING: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq,

2006-2013
PROFESSIONAL ASCE, ACI

MEMBERSHIP
PHD PUBLICATIONS Salman, N., and Issa M. A. (2018). “Prediction of the Measured
Response of an Integral Abutment Bridge Using a Finite-Element
Analysis.” Manuscript submitted for publication.
Salman, N., and Issa M. A. (2018). “Displacement Capacities of HP

Piles in Integral Abutment Bridges.” Manuscript submitted for
publication.
175

Salman Dissertation 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Salman Dissertation 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salman Dissertation 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Parametric Investigation of Integral Abutment Bridges: Behavior and Pile

Thesis · May 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NASSR NOORI IBRAHIM SALMAN

Mohsen Issa, Chair and Advisor

and teaching throughout PhD program.

Figure 1.1 Typical ordinary and IAB .............................................................................................. 2

maintenance cost of expansion joints, reducing the deterioration of substructure elements by

Deck Approach Slab Deck Approach Slab

Integral Abutment Integral Abutment

Ordinary Bridges Integral Abutment bridges

Figure 1.1 Typical ordinary and IAB

must be carefully addressed to set the safe length of IABs.

a detailed three-dimensional finite element model to investigate displacement capacities of IAB.

end, the following tasks have been performed:

1- Reviewing the available analytical procedures to simulate IABs

experimentally monitored data.

boundary conditions on the critical response.

in IABs which are then used in estimating maximum length of IAB.

This dissertation is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Literature Review

regarding soil structure interaction and finite element modelling techniques.

Chapter 3: Soil-structure Interaction

This chapter present soil-structure interaction for IABs. This includes:

- Nonlinear soil- pile interaction (p-y method).

- Nonlinear soil-abutment interaction (lateral earth pressure).

Chapter 4: Calibration of the numerical model

representative loading and boundary conditions are obtained.

Chapter 5: Parametric Study:

boundary conditions on the design criteria of IABs. These parameters include:

- Pile type and orientation.

- Soil type and stiffness around the pile.

Chapter 6: Pile buckling analysis of HP piles in Integral Abutment Bridges:

study aims at predicting displacement capacities of HP sections to set the maximum

length limits of IABs.

basically focused on four major approaches:

1. Field monitoring of newly constructed or in-service bridges.

2. Finite element simulations for full or partial bridge elements.

4. Displacement capacity of the HP piles supporting abutments.

four approaches. A historical sequence will be considered.

Studies comprised of instrumenting various locations in bridge superstructure and/or substructure

continued overall shortening of the bridge.

as shown Figure 2.1.

considered for the calibration process in this dissertation.

TABLE 2.1 BRIGE DETAILS MONITORED BY Frosch et al. (2004, 2011)

Southbound I-65 SR-18 US-232

Pile Type HP12x53 / CFT 14” CFT 14” CFT 14”

Date Instrumented Summer 2000 Summer 2003 Fall 2006

investigate the effect of high skew angle of IAB.

the transverse direction.

Modelling of IAB parts generally involves simple one-dimensional or two-dimensional finite

deck, abutments and piles.

criterion is used for the soil.

calibrated to laboratory testing.

2.4 Soil Modelling Methods

abutment interaction procedures in detail.

while the plastic part is defined as the ultimate soil resistance.