DESIGN IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL BRIDGES

Jayant VERMA Jayant Verma, born 1974, got his

Senior Design Engineer Master’s degree in Structural
ATKINS Engineering from Indian Institute
Sharjah, UAE of Technology, Delhi. He has
been involved in the consultancy
services for Bridge Engineering
for over nine years and is
currently responsible for design
and checking of bridges for
projects in Ireland and UK

. Srirup MITRA Srirup Mitra, born 1978, got

Design Engineer his degree in Civil Engineering
ATKINS from Nagpur University. He
Sharjah, UAE has been involved with design
of PSC and concrete highway
structure projects in Malaysia
and UK for over five years.
MohanRaj GOVINDAN MohanRaj Govindan, born
Design Engineer 1979, got his Master’s degree
SUMMARY ATKINS in Structural Engineering from
Sharjah UAE Govt. College of Engineering,
This report brings out the Salem. He on
discussion has design
been involved
aspects of
integral bridges with key with steel
emphasis structures
on problem areasdesign
and ways
to formulate logical solution associated with construction
to these problems. The paper
specifically addresses issues engineering
pertaining to ofintegral
bridges bridges built
with prestressed precast beams with open foundation.
However, many of the recommendation are also applicable to the other forms of construction.
The authors presume that the readers are well aware of the merits and types of Integral
bridges and hence forth discuss issues which are relevant to the design; specially in the Indian
context. It has now been established that these form of construction presents an excellent
solution for moderate span bridges and is now widely used in US and Western countries. The
paper attempts to draw the attention of the governing agencies in the country to take on more
research in this field and propose its own guidelines. Final conclusions are presented in the
end which should form the design basis for integral bridges as well as identifies the area of
more research.

1 OVERVIEW ON DESIGN CHALLENGES

In recent year’s extensive researches has gone into the field of bridge engineering to device
new ways and techniques to build more sustainable and cost effective bridges. Most
significant among these are Integral Bridges. They are best defined as joint-less Bridges i.e.
Bridges without any movement joints and bearings in the deck. Semi-integral bridges on the
contrary have sliding bearings at the abutment supports, but no expansion joint. These bridges
achieve greater durability and lower maintenance costs compared to conventional jointed
bridges.

1
In countries where the use of de-icing salts over the deck slab are common, it is mandatory to
have integral bridges for specified length (BA42/96 (1) recommends all bridge of length not
greater than 60m and skew angle 30 degree to be designed as integral bridges). However in
countries like India, where use of de-icing is either limited or not used at all over the bridges,
the adoption of integral bridges have not been considered mandatory by the Highway
agencies. However, a comprehensive study of the existing bridges in India shows a definite
need for alternative design form for bridges of moderate spans. Till recently the use of simply
supported bridges were considered as the most preferred choice by designers and approving
authorities. But with rapid growth in highway sector, the need for smooth riding quality over
the bridge deck and maintenance free structure is gaining popularity with the Highway
agencies. In the opinion of the author, the adoption of integral bridges with precast beams will
open a new vista of opportunity for contractors and precast industry in India.
Though quite a few Integral bridges have been built in the country, but still it has not picked
up in major way. The major road block has been the non-availability of the clear guidelines
on the topic. Integral Bridge is often considered most tricky to design for reasons which are
apparent from its articulation arrangement. Few of the apprehensions often raised are the
ways to tackle the movement and flexibility of the substructure under seasonal temperature
variation. It is understood that the behaviour of the backfill material under cyclic thermal
movement of the bank seat or abutment wall gets modified over the time. The estimate of
earth pressure in such situation requires research and in depth understanding of soil
behaviour. The other design challenges arise from the type of continuity (provided for
integrity), construction sequence, consideration of creep and shrinkage, base pressure
consideration and seismic load. All these aspects have been discussed in the subsequent
paragraphs with comparative studies where more option in design is available.

2 CONSIDERATION OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE

The consideration of lateral earth pressure on an integral bridge is guided by soil structure
interaction, which depends upon the externally applied loading and thermal movement of the
deck. Longitudinal force resulting from traction or braking of vehicle could generate passive
pressure on one of the abutment and active on the other. While thermal movement (expansion
or contraction) of the deck would render the backfill either in passive or active state. These
variations in the lateral earth pressure and movement of the abutment wall requires that
especial attention is given to the design of backfill material. It should be stiff enough to
support vertical load and flexible enough to accommodate thermal movements. For moderate
span bridges (up to 60m), it is ideal to have the peak angle of internal friction for backfill
close to 450.
2.1 Passive pressure under thermal expansion case
The consideration of lateral passive earth pressure profile has been a highlight of many of the
recent studies gone in this direction either though field study (Darley et al (2), 1996; Barker et
al. (3), 2001; Darley et al. (4), 1998) or though laboratory tests (Springman et al. (5), 1996;
Darley et al. (6), 1995). Based on these tests and recent findings, DMRB in UK have come up
with an advice note BA 42/96(1) for Integral bridges. It covers a range of Integral bridges from
shallow to full height frame and wall abutments. But before its recommendations are
discussed, it is appropriate to discuss the factors that make its formulation specially
challenging.
It is now well known that the thermal cyclic movement of the deck increases the soil stiffness
with time. After each annual thermal cycle, there is a net displacement of abutment away from
the backfill. This is largely due to the inelastic nature of the backfill. The deformation

2
undergone by soil mass in winter, when the deck contracts is not completely recovered in
summer when the deck expands. After each annual cycle, the back fill is modified and
resultant earth pressure increases. Further, this increase in earth pressure does not remain
constant in the subsequent thermal cycles. This is again due to non-linear displacement of the
earth mass. The overall phenomenon is often termed as “strain ratcheting” in Geotechnical
engineering.
The other problem associated with the Integral bridges is the subsidence pattern that develops
in the approach embankment behind the abutment as shown in Figure 1 below. This is due to
the phenomenon of accumulated irreversible soil-wedge slumping behind each abutment. This
is practically independent of the presence of any approach slab behind the abutment.
Approach slab only helps in bridging over the subsidence for short period, but subsequently it
fails and causes considerable maintenance problem. The cost of its maintenance and possible
replacement is more significant than the cost of placing the recurrent overlays.
Subsidence
zone

Long term
position of
abutment

Subsidence of approach embankment due

to soil wedge slumping

Fig.1 Subsidence of approach embankment behind Integral abutment

The design recommendation for lateral earth pressure distribution in BA 42/96 (1) is largely
based on the findings of the centrifuge and analytical studies reported by Springman et al.
(1996)(5). The report recognises the potential for stress escalation with time and proposes the
earth pressure distribution for both shallow height bank pad and full height frame abutment. A
typical earth pressure distribution for framed abutment is shown in Fig.2 based on the
recommendations of BA 42/96(1).
The earth pressure distribution behind full height (H > 3m, H is the height of abutment) frame
abutment is expressed in terms of ‘at rest’ earth pressure K 0 and K*, where k* is defined in
terms of passive pressure (KP), the retained height (H) and thermal displacement of the top of
the abutment (d).
K*= (d/0.05H)0.4 K p

3
 Fig. 2 Earth pressure distribution for frame abutment

As the relative compaction of the backfill is more pronounced in the top half of the abutment,
the pressure distribution follows the K* profile for top half of the abutment, with earth
pressure peaking at mid height. For remaining portion, the earth pressure is taken maximum
value of either mid-height K* or full K0 earth pressure as shown in Fig. 2.
It is seen that the K* earth pressure takes a value in between the “at rest” and passive earth
pressure. The test result conducted by Lock R J, 2002 in his thesis Integral Bridge
Abutment(7), indicates that the value considered by BA 42/96 (1) is on conservative side. But,
till the time more research is carried out, the existing formulation can be safely applied to the
new bridges. This holds good for construction carried out in India, as well. However, it would
be appropriate to suggest some field study to the already constructed integral bridges in the
country, to record its behaviour and maintenance issues. Also, for some of the up coming new
Integral bridges steps should be taken to monitor and record the variation of the earth pressure
under annual thermal cycles.
2.2 Active pressure for thermal contraction case
Active earth pressure on abutment during thermal contraction case should be considered
based on conventional design philosophy. Foundation of the abutment is especially venerable
to sliding, under thermal contraction case in conjunction with active earth pressure.

3 FORMULATION OF SOIL SPRING FOR EARTH PRESSURE

The distribution of forces in the different components of the bridge is highly sensitive to
stiffness of soil mass from backfill and founding strata, which acts as both load and
supporting system. Therefore a correct estimate of soil properties and their corresponding
stiffness is very importance for the design of integral bridges. In principle, if an Integral
bridge is analysed as pinned and fixed support, it should be good enough for design. But, the
only problem it has, is that it gives too much of a range for design, especially for the
superstructure. It is therefore appropriate to incorporating upper and lower bound soil
stiffnesses (based on geotechnical properties of the foundation soil) for analysis to reduce this
conservatism.
3.1 The idealisation of soil stiffness for base foundation
The soil stiffness is modelled as equivalent springs based on the horizontal and rotational
resistances offered by the foundation soil to the base, in case of open foundation. These
stiffnesses are introduced in the model at the centre of the foundation. Bridge Deck behaviour
by Hambly E.C. (8), could be referred to calculate these stiffnesses.
In upper bound analysis, stiffer soil characteristics with higher spring constant are considered
for foundation soil. This increases the resistance to movement and rotation of the foundation,
attracting more reactive forces and moments at the base. The substructure and foundation
should therefore always be checked for critical forces under upper bound stiffness. On
contrary the lower bound analysis considers a low stiffness value, allowing the soil to slide

4
and rotate with lesser force and moments at the base. This allows the forces to be concentrated
at the top of the substructure e.g. top of pier, diaphragm and beams. As such, these elements
should always be checked under lower bound stiffness.
It has been argued that the part failure of foundation soil under rotation does not cause
mechanism in the structure and as such moment should not be considered for checking the
base pressure. In such scenario, it is more appropriate to replace the rotational stiffness of the
soil with a constant moment. This is especially important for the superstructure design. The
allowed rotation shifts the position of rotation stiffness away from the centre of the base,
towards compression side. The maximum moment could then be limited to VB/2 (vertical
load x base width /2) for upper bound stiffness and minimum moment to VB/6(Vertical load x
base width/6) for lower bound stiffness. By limiting the moments to VB/2, it is assumed that
the rotation is about toe or heel of the base, allowing tension in the foundation base. For the
lower bound, the moment has been limited to VB/6 so that it confirms to rotation about the
middle third but with no uplift. Both these assumptions are conservative and narrows down
the range of superstructure design form fixed and pinned support.
3.2 The idealisation of soil stiffness for backfill
The soil stiffness from backfill depends on the mode of thermal movement. In case of thermal
expansion the deck elongates and forces the abutments to deflect outwards. This creates the
backfill to develop passive resistances (K*) against the abutments wall. This reactive soil
pressure assumes a peak value corresponding to extreme temperature difference. However, in
the previous paragraphs it has already been dealt, how passive pressure is dependent on the
deformation at the top of the abutment, therefore consideration of a unique (peak) value of
earth pressure for all load cases may not be appropriate. As such, it is proposed to replace the
lateral earth pressure with an equivalent soil spring at centre of gravity (say 1/3 from base) of
the pressure diagram. This could be iteratively deduced from the model, by first considering a
suitable value for backfill stiffness at 1/3rd from the top of the base (for no sliding case,
otherwise consider 1/3rd from the bottom of the base) and computing the corresponding
deformation at that height. This deformation is then applied back to calculate the revised
backfill stiffness from the passive resistance earth pressure. The revised value of stiffness is
then applied to the model to determine the corresponding deflection and so on, till the
deformation at the level of the stiffness converges.
On the other hand in case of thermal contraction case, the deck contracts and causes the
abutments to move away from backfill mobilising active earth pressure on the walls. As, this
is much less than the passive force, there is not much benefit in idealising equivalent soil
spring stiffness for the same. This could at best be applied as triangular load on the back of
the abutment for thermal contraction case.
4 ARTICULATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR THERMAL MOVEMENT OF
BACKFILL
For integral bridges, the superstructure is either built continuous (with bearing) or monolithic
with the pier. But it is definitely fixed though diaphragm at the abutment supports except for
semi-integral bridge, which could have sliding bearing at support. There is no provision for
any movement joint expect for a saw cut joint at the surface between the fill and abutment
wall. The articulation of the bridge is achieved though elastic deformation of the abutment
backfill, rocking/sliding of the bankseat and flexibility of substructure.
It is important that the substructure is not designed overtly conservative, as this would render
the bridge functionally problematic. The ideal scenario would be to design the substructure as
slender and flexible as possible. The pier should especially have sufficient flexibility to

5
accommodate the thermal movement to which it is subjected. In analysis, consideration of
cracked section for the pier may be examined for the critical load case. This allows the
designer to have optimum section for the pier.
If the abutment or bank seat is founded on pile foundation, it should ideally be restricted to
single row of piles. Raking piles should be avoided in all cases. It should be designed to
accommodate lateral movement and/or rocking of the abutment while still supporting the
axial loads.
For bridges with high skew angle, the interaction of the earth pressure with the structure and
the movement of the deck become much more complicated. For such bridges with skew angle
in excess of 300, it is preferred to have bearings and joints at abutment.

5 CONSIDERATION OF BASE PRESSURE FOR OPEN FOUNDATION

In a conventional design, the sizing of the base foundation is determined from the allowable
safe bearing capacity of the soil. The base pressure is not allowed to exceed this allowable
base pressure which is determined from corresponding failure load. The ultimate capacity in
turn depends on the type of soil and its corresponding failure mode. For cohesive soil, this
failure mode is due to the formation of slip surface, whereas, in case of non-cohesive soils,
the failure is due to excessive settlement.
In case of integral bridges, for there to be a ‘failure’, the gross movement of the foundation,
should form mechanism either by excessive rotation or settlement. The settlement is directly
proportional to the vertical load and hence could be controlled by suitable sizing of the
foundation base. Rotation on the other hand is resisted by the restrained offered by the
stiffness of the foundation soil, i.e. rotational soil stiffness. This attracts, moment at the base
of the foundation, leading to generation of peak stress at the foundation edges (toe or heel).
The peak bearing pressures, which in most case exceeds the allowable pressure, cannot be
sustained by soil stiffness and as such soil fails partially at the edges. This allows the
foundation to rotate for few hundred micro-radians at the base, reducing the non-uniform
distribution of bearing pressure at the base. Limited rotation at the base however does form
mechanism in the bridge. The moment from the base is then redistributed back to the
superstructure.
It is therefore, quite reasonable to ignore the peak bearing pressures caused by bending
moments and uniform bearing pressure at the base should be considered sufficient for design.
The resulting uniform pressure is however marginally affected by rotational moments from
variable transient loads. But such rotation has been found to be marginal and could be safely
neglected. Further, the rotation which may occur due to permanent loads may be totally
neglected as this is a once only effect and any soil plasticity would negate it.

6
 V V
M M V

Rotational
Stiffness

Conventional Approach Base pressure with Uniform soil pressure

for foundation Design Rotational Stiffness Approach

Fig. 3 Approach for base pressure check

6 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR INTEGRAL BRIDGES

In the construction of Integral bridges, the sequence of construction plays an important part in
load distribution among the various elements of the bridge, specially the diaphragm and
substructure. As per the established practice in some of the countries, where construction of
Integral bridges is common, the whole bridge is cast in stages, with over all construction time
ranging from few months to a year. At times, when the base of the footing is cast over the
selected fill material (especially for abutment, to allow sliding), it is prudent to monitor the
settlement and allow some waiting time before integration of the bridge is commenced. This
is especially important to limit the differential settlement between the foundations. The
settlement of the footing over the time should be observed and integration should only be
allowed, once the desired settlement is within the range of allowed differential settlement.
Normally this is limited to 15mm for design. However, this could vary depending upon the
site condition.
Sometime, to accentuate the settlement, the deck slab is also cast in stages. First the central
portion of the deck would be cast over the beams on permanent formwork and then, when the
concrete gains sufficient strength, the remaining portion of the deck is cast along with
diaphragm, making integrity with the substructure. The additional weight of the deck not only
helps in speeding up the settlement, but also allows the beam to transfer the dead load of deck
slab as simply supported, without generating any hogging moment over the integral support.
The allowed time also helps to ease out any rotation of the base due to dead load.

7 TYPES OF CONTINUITY AND ITS DESIGN IMPLICATION

The modelling and design of integral bridges should reflect the type of continuity proposed
for the connection at the pier and abutment supports. As per the available literatures, Pritchard
and Smith (9) and BD 57 (10), five types of continuity over the intermediate pier support has
been established. These are detailed below.
1) Wide in-situ integral crosshead: In this type of connection, the precast beams are kept
shorter than the span and they are temporarily supported by a prop before their ends are

7
 embedded in a wide in-situ integral crosshead. The pier heads are then permanently
supported over a single row of bearings over the pier cap.
2) Narrow in-situ integral crosshead: This system is similar to the first, only difference
being that the beams are directly supported over two sets of permanent bearing seated on
piercap and their ends are embedded in a narrow crosshead.
3) Integral crosshead cast in two stages: In this system, the pier cross head is cast in first
stage and the beams are launched on temporarily supports over the pier head (on shims)
and then the beam ends and crosshead is made monolithic with in-situ concrete
diaphragm.
4) Continuous separated deck slab: The deck slab over the pier head is isolated from the
beam by a layer of compressible material. The deck flexes independent of the beam to
accommodate the rotation at support. In-situ diaphragm is constructed at the ends of the
separated slab.
5) Tied deck slab: In this system, the deck slab is hinged over the pier using partly
debonded dowels, which only participate in transfer of axial load.
In the first three types of the continuity, large negative (hogging) moment is generated over
the support, primarily due to live load. Moment due to dead load of the beam and cast in-situ
deck (if cast before integrity) is presumed to be released over temporary support. As such the
diaphragm is designed for moments arising from loads applied after establishing the integrity.
However, a degree of complexity is introduced in the analysis, if restrained creep rotation of
the precast beams is included. Due to restrained creep, the hogging moment at support is
gradually compensated by accompanied sagging moment from creep. As per Clark and
Sugie(11), a net sagging moment is gradually developed at the support. Mattock (12), in his paper
presented a formulation based on “rate of creep” to determine the resulting moment due to
restrained creep. It is a function of creep co-efficient and is given by a factor (1-e -), where e
is the Napier’s constant.
Continuity of type 4 and 5 are relatively easy to handle as they do not provide moment
continuity. In type 5, the debonded dowels simply act as hinge allowing rotation, but
transmitting the axial load between the spans. In case of type 4, the movement of the span is
accommodated in the connecting slab, which acts independent of the beam between the spans.
The slab is designed based on the moment but for rest of the structure, the bridge behaves as
two simply supported spans.

8 Temperature:

Integral bridges are designed for two primary effects of temperature - temperature gradient
(over the bridge deck) and temperature difference (over the bridge length) in line with any
other conventional bridge.
The primary effect of temperature gradient can be analysed based on the guidelines presented
in Bridge deck behaviour by Hambly (8). However it must be stressed that as many of the
available software’s do not account for the temperature gradient over the depth of the section,
Engineers are often required to calculate the effect of gradient separately treating the deck to
be restrained at ends. The restrained forces and moments are then applied back in the model
as released moments to calculate its effect on substructure. For deck the effect of restrained
moment and released moment effect in the model are combined together to get the final effect
of temperature gradient in the deck as illustrated in Fig.4.

8
 M M M
F F
F
a) Restrained Forces due to temperature gradient over depth in deck section.
M M
F F

b) Released Forces applied in the model for equal spans Integral Bridge
M’ M’
F’ F’

c) Forces in deck after moment distribution

F” F”
M” M”
F” M” M” F”
M”
M”=M-M’ & F’’=F-F’ M”
d) Final Forces in the Deck (combination of restrained and released moment)

Fig. 4 Steps for calculating forces in deck due to temperature gradient.

The effect of temperature difference due to temperature rise and fall is however more easier to
handle as this is be easily applied thought temperature load in the model. More so, it is the
secondary effect arising from temperature difference in the deck which is more intricate as it
gives rise to variable earth pressure behind the abutment. The earth pressure mobilized behind
an abutment depends on the deflection of the abutment. The advisory note in BA 42/96 (1) ,
limits the longitudinal movement in the integral bridge abutments to ± 20mm from the
position at the time of restraint during construction.

9 Seismic design

Studies have shown that Integral bridges have performed exceptionally well in an event of
earthquake. With its structural arrangement, it eliminates the most common cause of failure of
bridge i.e. bearing dislodgement. Further, it makes the provision of special seismic devices to
mitigate earthquake, redundant.
From, design point of view, integral bridges provides additional degree of redundancy in case
of catastrophic earthquake. This however does not pose too much of a problem for analysis.
The bridges could be modelled as multi bay rigid frame and static analysis could be carried
out based on Seismic co-efficient method presented in IRC: 6-2000(13).

9
To improve the performance of the bridge, the detailing at the continuity locations should be
especially addressed. Recommendations of IS: 13920-1993 (14) for designing and detailing of
reinforced concrete structures should be followed to provide adequate toughness and ductility
at the continuity joints. Though the code is specific to monolithic reinforced concrete
construction, but Pre-cast and/or pre-stressed beams with ends encased in reinforcement
concrete may be used as they provide the same level of ductility. The ductile detailing is
mainly achieved by increasing the shear reinforcement area in the plastic hinge location and
extended up to a fixed distance designated as the confinement zone.
AASHTO LRFD (15) also specifies provisions for Seismic design which are important to
structural ductility. These provisions has been modified after the Loma Prieta earthquake in
U.S in the year 1989 which proved that the vulnerability of columns with inadequate core
confinement and inadequate anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement. Following criteria
should be addressed for any bride designed for seismic forces.
 Adequate reinforcement in the hogging moment region in the superstructure over
monolithic supports for longitudinal dynamic effects.
 Appropriate detailing of joints between columns and column heads for transverse
dynamic effects.
 Adequate reinforcement detailing for torsion in pier heads.
 Confinement Zone in substructure should continue for a distance of maximum cross-
sectional dimension, one sixth of the clear height or 450mm, whichever is greater.
 Confinement zones in superstructure should continue for a distance of 1.5 times the
effective depth from the end of the beams, reinforcement is placed to confine the pre-
stressing steel in the bottom flange. The diameter of the closed link should not be less
than 10mm, with a spacing not exceeding 150mm.
 Seismic hooks in beams should consist of a 135o bend, plus an extension of not less
than the larger of 6.0 times the diameter of the bar or 75mm. These should be used for
transverse reinforcement in regions of expected plastic hinges.

10. Conclusion

1. Integral bride should be considered an option for bridges of moderate span up to 60m
and skew angle limited to 30o. For bridges in excess of 60m, combination of semi-
integral and jointed bridges may be thought of. More research is needed to increase the
limit for span length for integral bridges.
2. The longitudinal movement for integral abutment should be limited to + 20mm from
the position at the time of restraint during construction.
3. Modified earth pressure profile with earth pressure co-efficient K*, could be used for
bridges constructed in India. However, more research on exiting and new bridges
would be required to establish a more appropriate lateral earth pressure profile.
4. For global analysis, the lateral earth pressure from the backfill should be replaced with
equivalent spring stiffness at centre of gravity of the pressure diagram.
5. Moment at the base of the foundation could be neglected for base pressure check.
6. For superstructure design, rotational stiffness at the abutment base could be replaced
with VB/2 for upper bound and VB/6 for lower bound design.
7. The longitudinal beam at intermediate support could be designed with nominal
reinforcement for sagging moment. Detailed analysis for long term creep at

10
 intermediate support may be avoided as its accuracy is affected by too many variable
parameters effecting the overall moment at the support.
8. Integral bridges presents good alternative to conventional bridges in high seismic
zones. However, proper detailing and consideration of plastic hinge needs special
attention.
9. The provision of approach slab does not provide any functional benefit for integral
bridges. It only acts as a stop gap arrangement for checking the subsidence behind the
abutment, hence could be avoided.
10. Use of Precast beams with in-situ deck should be considered an option for Integral
bridges. It presents an ideal solution for bridges for many of the ongoing and proposed
National Highway projects in the country. They could easily prove cost effective in a
project, where a number of moderate span bridges are required to be constructed.

11. Reference

1. BA 42/96, The design of Integral Bridges (DMRB 1.3.12)

2. DARLEY P, CARDER D. R. AND ALDERMAN G. H. (1996), Seasonal thermal
effect on shallow abutment of an integral bridge Glasgow. TRL Project Report 178.
3. BARKER K. J. AND CARDER D. R. (2001). Performance of an integral bridge over
M1-A1 Link Road at Bramham Crossroads. TRL Report 521.
4. DARLEY P, CARDER D. R. AND BARKER K. J. (1998). Seasonal thermal effects
over three years on the shallow abutment of an integral bridge in Glasgow. Transport
Research Laboratory Report 344.
5. SPRINGMAN S. M, A. R. M NORRISH AND C. W. W. NG (1996). Cyclic loading
of sand behind integral bridge. TRL Project Report 146.
6. DARLEY P. AND G. H. ALDERMAN (1995).Measurement of thermal cycle
movements on two portal frame bridges on the M1. TRL Project Report 165.
Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
7. LOCK R. J. (2002). M.Eng Project Report on Integral Bridge Abutment. CUED/D-
SOILS/TR320.
8. HAMBLY E. C. (1991). ‘Bridge Deck Behavior’; 2nd ed., E&FN Spon.
9. PRITCHARD B. P. AND SMITH A. J. (1991). Investigation of methods of achieving
continuity in composite concrete bridge decks. TRL Contractor Report 247.
10. BD 57/01, Design for durability.(DMRB 1.3.7)
11. CLARK L. A, SUGIE I. (1997). Serviceability Limit State Aspects of Continuous
bridge using precast concrete Beams, PCA.
12. MATTOCK A. H. (1961). Precast prestressed concrete bridges. 5.0Creep and
shrinkage studies, PCA
13. IRC6 (2000). Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, Section-II,
Loads and stresses.
14. IS13920 (1993). Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
seismic forces — code of practice.
15. AASHTO LRFD SECTION 5. Concrete structures.

11