Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
This paper provides a calculation showing how the heel length and overall length of the base
slab of a conventional cantilever gravity abutment can be determined in accordance with the
requirements of the Eurocodes and relevant non-contradictory information[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6].
Sliding resistance, bearing resistance and overturning stability are all considered.
The calculations illustrate the requirements of the Eurocodes in regard to loading, partial
factors, combination of actions and other issues which require a somewhat different approach
from that used with pre-Eurocode designs.
Notation
The symbols used in the calculations are as for the Eurocode and PD 6694-1. Other symbols
are defined in the text of the calculations or identified in the Figure 1.
50
72
36
Vtraffic
Utraffic
Hbraking
100
30
50
20Ka
h
F 2 x 330 Ka
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/lane
Soil parameters:
Granular backfill
Weight density
Angle of shearing resistance
bf
'bf
18
35
kN/m
Clay foundations
Weight density
Undrained shear strength
Angle of shearing resistance
Critical state angle of shearing resistance
Overburden pressure (q) = bf x Zq
cu
'
'cv
q
18
100
27
23
12
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
The initial dimensions of the foundations are to be based on traffic load group gr2 in which
the characteristic value of the multi-component action is taken as the frequent value of Load
Model 1 in combination with the frequent value of the associated surcharge model, together
with the characteristic value of the braking and acceleration action, (see the UK National
Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003, NA.2.34.2).
Wind is not required to be considered in combination with traffic model gr2 and thermal
actions are not considered to be significant and are therefore neglected in these preliminary
calculations.
The water table is well below foundation level and need not be considered, but it is required
to check sliding resistance and bearing resistance at STR/GEO for both the drained and the
undrained condition.
As no explicit settlement calculation is to be carried out at SLS it is required to be
demonstrated that a sufficiently low fraction of the ground strength is mobilised (see BS EN
1997-1:2004, 2.4.8(4)). This requirement will be deemed to be satisfied if the maximum
pressure at SLS does not exceed one third of the characteristic resistance (see PD 6694-1,
5.2.2).
Transverse Dimensions
Abutment width Wabut = 12m
Y= 1.5
Zq
P
Bheel
B
(d) The vertical pressure exerted by the backfill and the base slab (bfZ). (For
convenience in these preliminary calculations, the density of the concrete in the base
slab and abutment wall was considered to be the same as the density of the backfill
(bf)).
3. The length of the heel (Bheel) required to provide enough weight to resist sliding for the
drained foundation was found as follows:
The sliding resistance due to the weight of the deck less traffic uplift (Rvx) was taken
as (VDL;inf - U)tan'cv. The required sliding resistance due to the weight of the backfill
and abutment was therefore H-Rvx. The weight of the abutment and backfill required
to provide this resistance was therefore equal to (H-Rvx)/tan'cv and this had to equal
BheelbfZ. The required value of Bheel therefore equalled (H-Rvx)/(bfZtan'cv) and this
equals (H-Rvx)/(bfZ) as in Table 2.
4. As it was recognised that the loads on the toe and the use of the correct density of concrete
would increase the sliding resistance, the selected figure of Bheel in Table 2 was taken as
slightly less than the figure of Bheel obtained from the calculation.
5. For undrained foundations the total overall base length for sliding, (B1) was taken as Hd/cu;d
as in Table 2 (see BS EN 1997-1:2004, Equation 6a).
6. The required overall base length is also dependent on other factors such as the requirement
to keep the load within the middle third at SLS and within the middle two-thirds at ULS, the
bearing resistance for the drained and undrained condition and in some circumstances
(although not for this structure) for resistance to overturning. In all these calculations the
eccentricity of the vertical action is required. To obtain this it is convenient to take moments
about the back of the heel (point P on Figure 1) rather than the centre of the base, because the
bearing resistance calculations are iterative, but the moments about the back of the heel do not
alter with varying toe lengths, provided the value of Bheel is not changed. This allows multiple
iterations to be carried out with minimal change to the data.
7. Moments about P were calculated (see Tables 4 and 5). The distance of the line of action
from P is eheel, where eheel = M/V and M is the total moment about P and V is the total vertical
load. It can be shown that to satisfy the SLS middle third condition (see PD 6694-1, 5.2.2),
the overall base length (B2) must be 1.5 eheel, and to satisfy the ULS middle two-thirds
condition (see BS EN 1997-1:2004, 6.5.4), the overall base length (B3) must be 1.2 eheel (see
Table 5).
8. To determine the overall base length (B) required to provide adequate bearing resistance for
the undrained and drained conditions, an iterative calculation with increasing values of B was
carried out, starting with the maximum value of the base length found from the sliding
calculations (i.e the largest of B1, B2, or B3) and increasing progressively until the bearing
resistance for the undrained and drained conditions drained and the toe pressure limitation at
SLS were all satisfied.
9. The selected value of B and the calculations in Table 6 and 7 are based on the final
iteration, that is the minimum value of B necessary to satisfy the bearing resistance
requirements. The calculations largely replicate the equations given in BS EN 1997-1:2004,
Annex D.
Notes
The abutment is assumed to be transversely stiff and so the traffic loads can be
distributed over the whole width of the abutment (see PD 6694-1, Table 5 Note C)
For convenience in the preliminary design, the density of the concrete in the base slab
and wall is considered to be the same as the density of the backfill (bf).
It should be noted that the same partial factor G is applied to the vertical and
horizontal earth pressure actions (see PD 6694-1, 4.6). This is only likely to be
relevant in a sliding resistance calculation if STR/GEO Combination 1 is more critical
than Combination 2.
In these calculations a model factor, Sd;k = 1.2 has been applied to the horizontal earth
pressure at ULS in order to maintain a similar level of reliability to previous practice
(see PD 6694-1, 4.7).
In Tables 1 to 7 the figures given in the SLS column are the characteristic values of
material properties and dimensions and the characteristic or representative values of
actions per metre width. The figures in the STR/GEO columns are the design values
unless otherwise indicated.
Horizontal actions
SLS
Height of abutment Z
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
8.00
8.00
8.00
G;sup
1.00
1.35
1.00
bf,d
18.0
24.3
18.0
1.00
1.00
1.25
'bf;d
35.0
35.0
29.3
Ka
0.27
0.27
0.34
Sd:K
1.00
1.20
1.20
Hap;d
156
253
237
kN/m
h;ave
3.39
3.39
4.29
kN/m2
Hsc;udl
27.1
27.1
34.3
kN/m
Hsc;F
37.3
37.3
47.2
kN/m
Hsc;comb
64.4
64.4
81.6
kN/m
1.00
1.35
1.15
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hsc;d
48.3
65.2
70.4
kN/m
Hbraking;k
50.0
50.0
50.0
kN/m
1.00
1.35
1.15
Hbraking;d
50.0
67.5
57.5
kN/m
Hd
254
386
365
kN/m
'bf;k = 35;
tan-1(tan('bf;k)/M) = 'bf;d
Active pressure coefficient Ka incl. (M)
(1-sin'bf;d)/(1+sinbf;d)
kN/m3
SLS
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
8.00
8.00
8.00
VDL;k
158
158
158
kN/m
G;inf
1.00
0.95
1.00
VDL;inf;d
158
150
158
kN/m
Uk
30.0
30.0
30.0
kN/m
Q;sup
1.00
1.35
1.15
group grp2
0.75
0.75
0.75
Ud
22.5
30.4
25.9
kN/m
Vx;d
136
120
132
kN/m
1.00
1.00
1.25
0.42
0.42
0.34
Rvx;d
57.5
50.8
44.9
kN/m
Hd
254
386
365
kN/m
Rreq
197
335
320
kN/m
b;df
18.0
24.3
18.0
kN/m3
61.1
82.5
48.9
kN/m2
Bheel;req
3.22
4.06
6.55
Bheel
6.25
6.25
6.25
cu
1.4
cu:d
100.0
100.0
71.4
kN/m2
B1
2.54
3.86
5.11
'cv;k = 23;
SLS
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
8.00
8.00
8.00
Bheel
6.25
6.25
6.25
G;sup
1.00
1.20
1.00
50.0
60.0
50.0 kN/m3
1.00
1.35
1.00
72.0
97.2
72.0 kN/m3
1.00
1.20
1.00
36.0
43.2
36.0 kN/m3
VDL;sup;d
158
200
158 kN/m
Vtraffic;k
100.0
100.0
100.0 kN/m
1.00
1.35
1.15
0.75
0.75
0.75
Vtraffic;d
75.0
101
86.3 kN/m
bf;d
18.0
24.3
18.0 kN/m3
Bheel
6.25
6.25
6.25 m
Vbf;d
900
1215
900 kN/m
Vmax;d
1133
1517
1144 kN/m
G;sup
G;sup
SLS
Hap;d
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
156
253
237
kN/m
2.67
2.67
2.67
Map;d
416
674
633
kNm
Hsc;udl
27.1
27.1
34.3
kN/m
4.00
4.00
4.00
Msc;udl
108
108
137
kNm
Hsc;F
37.3
37.3
47.2
kN/m
Lever arm = Z
8.00
8.00
8.00
Hsc;F Z = Msc;F
Msc;F
298
298
378
kNm
Msc;comb
406
406
515
kNm
Q for surcharge
1.00
1.35
1.15
0.75
0.75
0.75
Msc;d
305
412
444
kNm
Hbraking;d
50.0
67.5
57.5
kN/m
La;b
6.50
6.50
6.50
Mbraking;d
325
439
374
kNm
Mhor;d
1046
1525
1451
kNm
Table 4. Moments about the underside of the base due to horizontal actions
SLS
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
Bheel
6.25
6.25
6.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
La;deck
6.00
6.00
6.00
VDL;sup;d
158
200
158
kN/m
Mdeck;d
948
1202
948
kNm
Vtraffic;d
75.0
101
86.3
kN/m
Mtraffic;d
450
608
518
kN/m
Vbf;d
900
1215
900
kNm
Mbf;d
2813
3797
2813
kN/m
Mvert;d
4211
5607
4278
kNm
Mhor;d
1046
1525
1451
kNm
Mheel;d
5257
7131
5729
kNm
Vd
1133
1517
1144
kN/m
eheel
4.64
4.70
5.01
B2
6.96
B3
5.64
6.01
SLS
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
m
m
m
Bheel
L
8.60
6.25
12.0
0o
8.60
6.25
12.0
0o
8.60
6.25
12.0
0o
cu
c
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.40
1.00
d
d
cd
18.0
27.0
0
100.0
17.1
27.0
0
100.0
18.0
22.2
0
71.4
kN/m3
Mheel;d
eheel
e
qd
254
1133
5257
4.64
0.34
12.0
386
1517
7131
4.70
0.40
12.0
365
1144
5729
5.01
0.71
12.0
kN/m
kN/m
kNm/m
m
m
kN/m2
B
A
L
7.92
7.92
12.0
7.80
7.80
12.0
7.19
7.19
12.0
m
m2
m
bc
sc
ic
R/A
Vd /A
R / Vd
1.00
1.13
0.91
543
143
3.79
1.00
1.13
0.86
509
195
2.62
1.00
1.12
0.77
328
159
2.06
181
Not critical
(see Table 7)
cu;d
Hd
Vd
163
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
SLS
STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2
B
L
A
7.92
12.0
7.92
7.80
12.0
7.80
7.19
12.0
7.19
Nq
Nc
13.2
23.9
13.2
23.9
7.96
17.1
N
bc
bq , b
12.4
1.00
1.00
12.4
1.00
1.00
5.68
1.00
1.00
sq
s
1.30
0.80
1.29
0.81
1.23
0.82
sc
m
iq
ic
i
1.32
1.60
0.67
0.64
0.52
1.32
1.61
0.62
0.59
0.47
1.26
1.63
0.54
0.47
0.36
R/A
Vd /A
R / Vd
0.00
137
367
504
143
3.52
0.00
128
311
439
195
2.25
0.00
62.7
110
172
159
1.08
168
163
Limits
satisfied
m
m
m2
kN/m2
kN/m
kN/m2
kN/m2
Final Design
After the preliminary design has been completed a final design should be carried out as given
below:
1. Select the final dimensions based on the preliminary values: Bheel = 6.25m and B = 8.6m.
As the weight on the toe has not been included in the preliminary design, Bheel has been
"rounded down" and the overall length (B) may need to be "rounded up".
2. The final selected base slab dimensions should be verified using the correct concrete
densities, the loads on the toe and other relevant combinations of actions.
Details of the final design calculations are not included in this paper.
Conclusions
It is difficult to generalise about which combination of actions or which limit states are critical
on the basis of calculations for a single bridge because the critical combination is often
determined by the ratio of the bridge span to the abutment height or the ratio of traffic action
to the soil actions. It is however clear that horizontal earth pressures are generally critical for
STR/GEO Combination 1 regardless of the bridge proportions because G for soil is higher
than Ka;d /Ka;k for most realistic values of '. Also, for undrained sliding resistance
Combination 2 is always likely to be critical because M on cu is higher than Ka;d /Ka;k for all
realistic values of ', and it is also higher than Q on surcharge braking and acceleration.
For drained sliding resistance, in the calculations presented in this paper, Combination 2 was
more critical than Combination 1, primarily because the effects of G on the weight of soil
were favourable for sliding resistance and unfavourable for horizontal pressure and therefore,
to some extent, cancelled each other out in Combination 1. It was however apparent from the
calculations that Combination 1 could be critical for sliding for low abutments supporting
long spans where braking and acceleration actions were large and earth pressures were small.
For bearing pressure, Combination 2 was found to be significantly more critical than
Combination 1 for both drained and undrained foundations and as M effects tend to
predominate in bearing resistance calculations it seems probable that Combination 2 will be
critical for bearing resistance in most typical abutments and retaining walls. It was also
apparent from supporting calculations that the limitation on toe pressure at SLS is quite severe
and that in many cases where it is required to be applied, it will dictate the length of the base.
Additional explicit settlement calculations may therefore result in shorter base lengths being
required.
Overturning was not found to be an issue for the abutment illustrated in this paper and
although it needs to be verified, it appears that it is unlikely to affect the proportions of typical
gravity abutments as bearing failure under the toe would normally precede overturning.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]