Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic modeling of integral abutment bridges in Illinois T

⁎
D.L. Kozak , J.M. LaFave, L.A. Fahnestock
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801,
USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Integral abutment bridges (IABs) are a common bridge type used in modern design and construction to prevent
Integral abutment bridge damage at the abutment seat from water, dirt, or deicing chemicals penetrating through a compromised ex-
Nonlinear modeling pansion joint. Elimination of expansion joints in IABs leads to complex soil-structure-interaction limit states
Seismic response involving the IAB abutment and surrounding soil, as well as unique overall bridge behavior in comparison to
non-IABs. Despite this different behavior, there is a lack of studies investigating overall bridge performance of
IABs when subjected to seismic loads. Existing seismic IAB studies have typically investigated individual com-
ponents, such as the interaction between abutment piles and soil or the behavior of superstructure-abutment
connections, but the comprehensive behavior of all IAB components when subjected to an earthquake has not
been evaluated in an integrated fashion. This study details an IAB model developed for dynamic analysis that
simultaneously considers contributions from all critical IAB components. The seismic response of two IABs, one
with steel plate girders and another with precast prestressed concrete girders, is evaluated at the design-level
shaking using the developed model. The design-level shaking is provided by 20 ground motions, for a 1000-year
return period hazard-level, developed for the southern Illinois city of Cairo. Results demonstrate the ability of
the IAB model to capture key features of bridge seismic behavior, and they provide a framework for bridge
engineers to understand IAB earthquake response and limit states, as well as support recommendations for IAB
seismic design in Illinois concerning side retainer anchor bolt size and pier column size.

1. Introduction
Integral abutment bridges (IABs) are commonly used in modern
bridge construction, with well over 9000 IABs in service across the U.S.
[1,2]. In addition to being of interest due to their common use, the
seismic performance of IABs is also interesting due to the rigid con-
nection between the bridge superstructure and abutment. This rigid
connection results from removing the expansion gap and bearing be-
tween the superstructure and abutment and replacing them with a
continuous monolithically-cast abutment encasing the girder [3,4]. The
gap between the abutment and girder is removed to minimize main-
tenance costs associated with water, dirt, and deicing chemicals that
may fall to the abutment seat and damage the bearing, abutment, and
superstructure girders [2,5]. While maintenance costs are decreased, in
IABs there is no expansion gap to accommodate superstructure move-
ment caused by thermal, creep, shrinkage, or seismic effects [5]. This
leads to moments and forces being transferred from the superstructure
to the abutment, as opposed to more clearly defined forces if a non-
integral abutment is implemented. This interaction, together with that
between the abutment and abutment piles, leads to complex behavior in
the entire bridge given the interaction between the superstructure,
abutment, and abutment piles, which does not occur in non-IABs [6].
Understanding the seismic behavior of highway bridges is important
not only to develop cost-effective designs, but also to properly assess
existing bridges and their safety immediately after an earthquake.
Illinois IABs are of interest due to the potentially large ground motions
produced in the southern part of the state, which is close to the New
Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), and due to the large number of IABs
currently constructed and being designed for the region.
Since there is little experimental data – field or laboratory – on the
seismic response of IABs, numerical models are essential for under-
standing geotechnical/structural behavior and ensuring safety in design
provisions. Accurate assessment of IAB seismic behavior must include
all important limit states that could occur in a bridge’s superstructure,
substructure, and foundation components. This article describes a
comprehensive framework for numerical modeling of IABs and then
uses it to evaluate IABs located in southern Illinois subjected to design-
level ground motion time histories.
The complex behavior of IABs under seismic loads leads to a variety
of potential damage locations within a bridge. Due to the increased

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dlkozak2@illinois.edu (D.L. Kozak), jlafave@illinois.edu (J.M. LaFave), fhnstck@illinois.edu (L.A. Fahnestock).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.088
Received 9 January 2018; Accepted 28 February 2018
Available online 21 March 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.L. Kozak et al.
moments being transferred between the superstructure and abutment,
which does not occur in non-IABs, this connection is one of the more
intuitive places where damage can potentially be found [7]. From ac-
tual seismic events in New Zealand and California, it has been indicated
that IABs are less likely to be damaged than non-IABs, however when
damage does occur it can be found in the abutment and the abutment
piles [8]. Failure of abutment piles along with significant damage to
pier columns has also been observed in IABs during a series of earth-
quakes in Canterbury, New Zealand during 2010–2011 [9].
Thermal load effects on IABs in Illinois have previously been studied
through field monitoring and computer modeling [6,10,11]. Similarly,
there have been studies concerning the seismic behavior of non-IABs in
Illinois. These studies looked into the effects that elastomeric bearings
have on energy dissipation [12,13], the effects a seat-type abutment has
on seismic behavior [14], as well as how non-IABs behave as a whole
system when subjected to seismic excitation [15–17]. The studies
generally concluded that the bearings, abutment backwall, and pier
columns provide a large contribution to an entire bridge’s seismic be-
havior. The conclusion that the abutment backwall, which does not
exist in an IAB, has a large contribution further validates the need for
more study into how IABs behave under seismic loads and how that
behavior differs from otherwise similar non-IABs.
Although the previously-mentioned studies provide information
concerning thermal effects on IABs and seismic effects on non-IABs in
Illinois, there is relatively little information concerning the seismic
behavior of IABs within Illinois or the central U.S. Most prior studies
concerning the seismic behavior of IABs have not considered bridge
behavior as a whole, instead focusing on individual components, which
may neglect some important interactions between components. Many
of the studies have been concerned with soil-structure interaction (SSI)
due to the lack of an expansion joint causing increased moments and
forces transmitted to the abutment [18–20]. SSI is studied in the two
locations where it frequently occurs: between the abutment backwall
and backfill [21], and between the single row of vertical piles and
surrounding soil [18–20,22]. The latter SSI is very important in the
bridge transverse direction (perpendicular to traffic) due to the lack of
backfill in that direction [23]. Additional studies have also considered
the individual behavior of the pile-pile cap connection under seismic
loads [24,25] and of the girder-abutment connection [7], both of which
are of concern due to the large moments transferred at these locations.
Models developed in this article are created in the nonlinear
structural analysis software OpenSees [26] and represent entire IABs.
Individual components are included in the overall bridge models to
account for their specific behavior, in accordance with existing litera-
ture and/or experimental study. Modeling an entire IAB allows for
unique observations of how an IAB behaves and its individual compo-
nents interact with each other during seismic response. For the study
presented in this article, 1000-year return period design-level earth-
quake input was used to evaluate IABs in southern Illinois and to de-
velop a database of expected seismic response for the most common IAB
scenarios. In the future, the models will be used in a wider paramteric
study assessing IAB seismic response.
Fig. 1. Schematic of bridge numerical model.
171
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
2. Component modeling
The IAB model, shown in Fig. 1 was developed for use in the non-
linear dynamic analysis software OpenSees [26]. The component
models and corresponding component damage limit states are based on
existing literature and experimental results to accurately capture the
behavior of each component.
2.1. Non-abutment components
2.1.1. Superstructure
The superstructure is modeled using the grillage method which
models the girders, deck, parapets, and transverse diaphragms as beam
elements in the transverse and longitudinal directions, as can be seen in
Fig. 1. The single longitudinal beam elements represent a composite
girder and deck element and is located at the composite girder-deck
centroid height. In the transverse direction, there are two beam ele-
ments; one at the composite girder-deck centroid height which re-
presents the steel diaphragms in steel superstructures and the concrete
pier diaphragms and steel permanent bracing in concrete super-
structures, the second beam represents the concrete deck itself and is
located at the centroid of the deck. Appropriate masses are also as-
signed at the composite girder-deck centroid level and deck centroid
level representing the girders and diaphragms at the lower point and
the deck and parapets at the higher point.
The beams are represented as elastic and do not consider non-
linearities caused by the material or geometry of the superstructure
components. Treating the superstructure as elastic is reasonable due to
the lack of evidence of superstructure damage in previous seismic
events as well as the fact that the girders, deck, and diaphragms are
designed to remain in the elastic region in Illinois. This method of
treating the superstructure as remaining in the elastic region has been
implemented in past modeling of Illinois bridges [15,17].
2.1.2. Approach slab
The approach slab is included through rigid beam elements which
are pin connected to the abutment at one side and sit on rollers at the
far end above the approach slab-transition slab footing or pile cap. This
simplified model of the 9.144 m-long approach slab is included due to
the additional mass that it provides which may affect the behavior of
the IAB. It is modeled as pin connected to the abutment due to the
relatively weak dowels connecting the two components and represented
by a roller connection above the approach slab-transition slab founda-
tion due to the lack of any connection beside friction [3,4]. The friction
between the backfill soil and the approach slab is also neglected due to
evidence that this soil tends to settle and have no contact with the
approach slab [14].
2.1.3. Elastomeric bearings and side retainers
The type I elastomeric bearings, shown in Fig. 2a, are elastomer
blocks reinforced with steel shims. They are vulcanized at the top to a
steel plate, which is in turn connected to the superstructure girders,
while the free end at the bottom is in direct contact with the pier cap
concrete surface [3]. A numerical model, described in [17] and based
D.L. Kozak et al.
Fig. 2. Elastomeric bearing diagram and element behavior.
on the experimental results of [12,13], is used in the IAB model. This
numerical model, an example of which is shown in Fig. 2b, accounts for
the stiffness of the bearing as well as its initial, post-slip, and kinematic
friction resistance forces. The elastomeric bearing sliding limit state
occurs if the drop to kinematic sliding occurs. Should the bearing slide
off the pier cap, the bearing unseating limit state occurs.
Adjacent to the elastomeric bearings, though not initially in direct
contact, are the side retainers, also shown in Fig. 2a. The side retainers
are placed 10.8 mm from the transverse sides of the elastomeric
bearing. There are no retainers in the longitudinal direction. The re-
tainers are also described in [17] and based on experimental testing
which exhibits roughly elasto-plastic behavior [12]. The behavior,
shown in Fig. 2c, accounts for the damage limit states of retainer en-
gagement (once the bearing contacts the retainer), retainer yielding,
and retainer failure after which no load can be taken in the component.
2.1.4. Fixed bearings
The other bearing type typically found in Illinois bridges is the low-
profile fixed bearing. The fixed bearing is composed of two steel plates,
the bottom of which is bolted to the pier cap, which are connected using
pintles [3], as shown in Fig. 3a. While it is plausible that the pintles
would fail, the design of the bearing and experimental results indicate
that the anchor bolts are the critical component [16]. The low-profile
fixed bearing behavior is based on experimental results [13] and fol-
lows the behavior models in [16]. The models account for the yielding
and failure of the low-profile fixed bearings and the unseating of the
bearing beyond bearing failure.
2.1.5. Pier columns
Four circular reinforced concrete columns between the pile and pier
caps are modeled at each pier. The pile and pier caps are relatively
much stiffer and stronger than the columns themselves leading to the
pile and pier caps being modeled as rigid elements. Despite being
172
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
modeled as rigid the mass of these elements are considered in the
model. There is evidence that significant damage can occur in the pier
columns during seismic events [9], so the columns are modeled to
capture the potential damage and nonlinear behavior. The pier columns
are modeled using a distributed plasticity force-based beam-column
element [27]. This element models beam-columns by splitting the ele-
ment into three sections; two sections at the ends of the element re-
presenting the plastic hinge regions, and a center section which is linear
elastic.
Within the plastic hinge regions, the nonlinearities are accounted
for through the fiber model of the cross section. The inner 8 rings re-
present the confined concrete while the outer 2 rings are the unconfined
concrete. Steel fibers are also included between the last confined and
the first unconfined concrete layers. The parameters and modeling
methods used are the same as those in [17], which have been validated
against experiments by [28].
Three pier column limit states are included for both concrete and
steel strain; light damage, moderate damage, and severe damage. The
strain values to reach each limit state are presented in Table 1 and
correspond to values from [29,30] with the moderate limit corre-
sponding to a serviceability limit and severe damage corresponding to a
damage control limit.
2.1.6. Pier foundations
The foundations of the piers contain rigidly-modeled pile caps and
either two or three rows of piles, depending on the specific bridge’s
design. The modeling of the piles and surrounding soil is important in
this area in order to accurately capture the bridge behavior. The piles
extend 6.096 m below the pile cap and are arranged such that the
strong bending axis of each pile is parallel to the bridge transverse di-
rection. At the 6.096 m depth the piles are fixed in place. As shown in
Fig. 4a, the piles are discretized into 30 elements, as previously per-
formed in Illinois IAB studies [11]. The top 3.048 m of the piles are
D.L. Kozak et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Fig. 3. Fixed bearing diagram and element behavior.

Table 1 modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa. The pile yielding limit state oc-
Corresponding strain values for pier column limit states. curs when the 1.1 fy,des stress is reached.
At the end of each pile element is a set of p-y and t-z springs which
Limit State Concrete (compression) Reinforcing Steel (tension)
represent the soil conditions at the site at that specific depth. The p-y
Light Damage −0.005 < εconc ≤ −0.002 0.0021 ≤ εrebar < 0.015 and t-z spring models in OpenSees, shown in Fig. 4c and d, are based on
Moderate Damage −0.018 < εconc ≤ −0.005 0.015 ≤ εrebar < 0.06 [22]. The soil properties for each spring model are based on soil profiles
Severe Damage εconc ≤ −0.018 0.06 ≤ εrebar
developed from existing boring data in southern Illinois for use in the
region [14,31].
152.4 mm-long nonlinear fiber beam-column elements (shown in The OpenSees p-y spring models require the ultimate capacity of the
Fig. 4b) and the bottom 3.048 m are discretized into 304.8 mm-long material, pult, the displacement at which 50% of pult is mobilized, y50,
linear elastic elements. The entire pile is not modeled with nonlinear and the drag resistance coefficient, Cd. Cd can be assumed to be 0.3 for
fiber elements due to the lack of evidence of damage in the pier piles both clay and sand layers [32]. The clay pult and y50 can be determined
during seismic events as well as the minimal difference in bridge be- using the soil’s undrained shear strength, unit weight, the pile’s dia-
havior that occurs when the bottom 3.048 m is modeled with nonlinear meter, equations from [22,33], and tables from [34]. The sand pult and
elements. The nonlinear fiber elements use the Steel02 material in y50 values are determined using the effective friction angle, and equa-
OpenSees with an actual yield strength of 1.1 fy,des where fy,des is the tions and tables from the American Petroleum Institute (API) [35].
design yield strength of 345 MPa and a strain hardening ratio of 0.48%. The t-z springs account for the friction which may act on the piles
Both the nonlinear and linear elastic element materials have a steel when they move vertically. Similar to the p-y springs, the t-z springs

Fig. 4. Pier pile (a) element discretization, (b) nonlinear fiber section, (c) sample lateral p-y spring behavior, and (d) sample vertical t-z spring behavior.

173
D.L. Kozak et al.
Fig. 5. Model of the integral abutment with its individual components.
require tult and z50 values in the OpenSees model. [35] provides equa-
tions and suggested values for modeling the tult and z50 values of these
springs.
Due to the importance of the SSI between the piles and the sur-
rounding soil [6], p-y and t-z spring behavior is monitored to evaluate
the damage to the soil surrounding the piles. This soil failure limit state
occurs as any p-y or t-z spring attached to any of the pier piles ap-
proaches their respective pult or tult strength limits.
2.2. Abutment components
The complex interactions between the superstructure, abutment,
and abutment piles is the main difference between IABs and non-in-
tegral abutment bridges. The abutment model, shown in Fig. 5, can be
broken down into 10 components, each of which will be described in
the following subsections.
2.2.1. Girder-abutment connection
The girder-abutment connection (component 1 in Fig. 5) has shown
to be a location where a large amount of force and moment is trans-
ferred from the superstructure to the abutment, however it is unlikely
that a plastic hinge will form at this location [7]. In IABs the girders are
sufficiently embedded in the concrete abutment leading to a rigid
connection between the girders and abutment when the monolithically
cast deck-abutment concrete has hardened. However, before the con-
crete hardens, the weight of the wet concrete is taken solely by the
girders which can rotate due to them being placed on only a thin
bearing pad on top of the pile cap portion of the abutment. This allows
for the girders to rotate freely and not transfer the moments caused by
the superstructure dead load to the abutment. Given this, the girder-
abutment connection is modeled as a pinned connection during the
application of dead load and a rigid connection during the dynamic
load, as previously modeled in Illinois IAB thermal analyses [36].
2.2.2. Abutment and pile cap
Due to the large sizes of the concrete abutment and pile cap ele-
ments (components 2 and 3, respectively, in Fig. 5) these elements are
relatively much stiffer and stronger than the numerous other compo-
nents attached to them. This allows the elements to be modeled as rigid
in the earthquake simulations.
Although the abutment and pile cap are adjacent to each other and
both modeled as rigid elements, they are not cast at the same time and
therefore a construction joint occurs between the two components. The
174
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
pile cap-abutment connection (component 4 in Fig. 5) represents the
concrete-to-concrete friction between the pile cap and the abutment as
well as the dowel crossing this connection’s interface. The resistance
from the friction and dowels are considered by combining them into a
single constitutive model, as shown in Fig. 6. The failure of the dowels
indicates the critical limit state at this interface.
According to [4], the dowels crossing the pile cap-abutment inter-
face are #8 bars at the back and front of the abutment at a spacing of
304.8 mm center-to-center. Based on information from [37] the ulti-
mate shear resistance of a single dowel bar can be calculated. The force-
displacement behavior shown in Fig. 6a is based on the ultimate shear
strength and a relationship from [37], and [38] provides equations for
concrete-to-concrete friction behavior.
2.2.3. Abutment backfill
Found to be a key component in the seismic behavior of non-in-
tegral abutment bridges [14], the abutment backfill soil also con-
tributes heavily to the seismic behavior of IABs. The backfill soil is
modeled in a manner that has been used for previous Illinois bridge
seismic analyses and is described in much more detail in [14]. The
backfill spring model (component 5 in Fig. 5) simulates the backfill
pressure against the abutment using the force-displacement relation-
ship from [39,40], which is based on soil failing with a logarithmic
spiral failure surface considering hyperbolic stress-strain behavior in
the soil. This behavior is shown in Fig. 7 and only applies to the backfill
soil when it is under compression.
The backfill spring model is based on typical backfill parameters
provided by IDOT, as shown in Table 2. These parameters are used in
conjunction with the equations provided in [40] to determine the
backfill soil’s initial stiffness and ultimate resistance. The backfill soil
failure limit state occurs when the ultimate backfill resistance is
achieved.
2.2.4. Abutment foundation
The abutment piles have been found to be damaged in IABs sub-
jected to past earthquakes [8,9]. The abutment foundation model is
similar to the pier foundation model, as described earlier. A major
difference between the piles at the piers and those at the abutments is
that there is only one row of piles at the abutments and, in Illinois, they
are oriented such that the strong axis is parallel to the longitudinal
bridge direction in order to allow easier movement in the longitudinal
direction through weak axis bending of the piles [4]. The models of the
individual piles (component 6 in Fig. 5) at the abutments are nearly
D.L. Kozak et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Fig. 6. Sample cyclic behavior for the (a) shear of the dowel rod through the pile cap-abutment interface, (b) concrete-to-concrete friction at the pile cap-abutment interface, (c) overall
pile-cap abutment interface.

Table 2
Backfill soil properties.

Parameter Symbol Value

Unit Weight γ 16.2 kN/m3

Effective Friction Angle ϕ’ 39o
Mobilized Cohesion of the Embankment Soil c 0
Wall-to-Soil Interface Friction Angle δ 39o
Poisson’s Ratio ν 0.35
Failure Ratio Rf 0.97
Strain at 50% of Failure Strength ε50 0.03

identical to the models at the piers, however the abutment piles are
modeled to a depth of 9.144 m, where they are fixed at the base, with
the bottom 3.048 m being discretized into 609.6 mm elements. At the
abutment all 35 discretized elements in each abutment pile are fiber
elements with more fibers (120 fibers per section, compared to the 30
fibers in pier pile sections) as opposed to just the top 20 as defined at
Fig. 7. Sample backfill behavior subjected to cyclic loads.
the piers. This change is made due to the much larger moments that are
transferred to the abutment piles leading to potential nonlinear beha-
vior extending deeper down the piles. The surrounding soil p-y and t-z
springs (component 7 in Fig. 5) are calculated in the same way as de-
scribed above for the pier foundation using the soil profiles for southern

175
D.L. Kozak et al.
Illinois [41]. Limit states of pile yielding and failure of the soil sur-
rounding the piles are once again monitored in the foundation.
Another difference between the pier and abutment foundations is
the consideration of the pile-pile cap connection (component 8 in
Fig. 5). Though it is modeled as a rigid connection due to its sufficient
embedment length of greater than 609.6 mm [25], there is expected to
be significant damage and nonlinear behavior occurring at the interface
on the pile side which can be captured by the nonlinear fiber elements.
2.2.5. Wingwall components
In addition to the abutment, a wingwall is connected to the pile cap
at each side of the abutment. A 3.048 m-long, 304.8 mm-thick wingwall
which extends parallel to the transverse bridge direction is modeled.
The backfill’s contribution to this component can be calculated with the
same procedure used for the abutment and pile cap. This backfill con-
tribution is then applied in the form of a single backfill spring on each
side of the abutment (component 9 in Fig. 5). This backfill resistance is
then transferred to the pile cap by way of the dowels, which connect the
two components. This backfill-pile cap connection (component 10 in
Fig. 5) is represented using the same calculations for dowel shear re-
sistance as provided for the pile cap-abutment connection. The con-
nection for the bridges presented in this article is (16) #5 steel bars
across the interface. It is assumed that there is no friction since there is
no significant normal force being applied.
2.3. Limit states
The described limit states are further separated into three categories
depending on their severity. The three categories are ‘Ideal’,
‘Acceptable’, and ‘Unacceptable’. Ideal limit states are those that are
easily repaired and allow the bridge to remain in service immediately
after a seismic event. Acceptable limit states are those that allow for the
bridge to remain in service immediately after an event, but are much
more difficult to repair or even identify, which could cause potential
future issues. Unacceptable limit states are those that make the bridge
unsafe for use after an event. This could be an issue depending on the
location of the bridge and whether emergency response must cross the
bridge after an event. Table 3 presents a summary of all the limit states
of interest, their abbreviations, and the limit state classification.
3. Bridges of interest
Two IABs are modeled and subjected to design-level earthquakes in
southern Illinois; one using prestressed concrete girders, and the other
using steel plate girders as the main superstructure elements. The
modeled IABs are typical for the region and are designed using IDOT
literature [3,4]. Both IABs considered in this article use elastomeric
bearings, so the fixed bearing models above are not used in these IABs.
A summary of the design parameters described below is also provided
in Table 4.
Both IABs are three-span bridges with exterior spans of 24.384 m
and a center span of 36.576 m, creating a total abutment-to-abutment
Table 3
Summary of limit states.
Ideal Limit States Acceptable Limit States
Backfill Failure – BF Abutment Pile Yielding – APY
Side Retainer Engagement – RE Abutment Pile-Soil Interaction Failure – APS
Side Retainer Yielding – RY Pile Cap-Abutment Interface Failure – PA
Side Retainer Failure – RF Pier Pile Yielding – PPY
Fixed Bearing Yielding – FY Pier Pile-Soil Interaction Failure – PPS
Fixed Bearing Failure – FF Moderate Steel Damage in Piers – SM
Elastomeric Bearing Sliding – BS Moderate Concrete Damage in Piers – CM
Light Steel Damage in Piers – SL
Light Concrete Damage in Piers – CL
176
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
span length of 85.344 m. The models are also very similar in that they
both have 6 girders spaced at 2.2098 m center-to-center supporting a
203.2 mm-thick, 13.1572 m-wide concrete deck. Both bridges also have
(6) HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric) piles at the abutments and four
4.572 m-tall, 762 mm-diameter concrete pier columns with (12) #10
steel reinforcing bars. The remaining bridge design parameters vary
between the steel and concrete superstructure IABs.
The steel IAB has 1.0922 m-deep plate girders consisting of
12.7 × 1016 mm web plates and 38.1 × 304.8 mm flanges. At non-pier
diaphragm points a C15x40 (C380x60 metric) section is used to connect
the girders, as per the IDOT Bridge Manual [3]. The girders are con-
nected to the pier caps with 15-a elastomeric bearings and retainers
using 31.75 mm-diameter anchor bolts. The 15-a bearing is a
381 × 609.6 × 19.05 mm elastomeric bearing [42]. In the pier foun-
dations, 2 rows of (7) HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric) piles are im-
plemented at each pier with the rows being 1.524 m from each other.
This specific steel superstructure IAB design is the model shown in
Fig. 1, as can be seen from the pier foundation layout.
The prestressed concrete IAB uses a 1.3716 m beam with a
609.6 mm-wide top flange and a 965.2 mm-wide bottom flange that is a
typical shape for IDOT use [43]. This prestressed beam contains 46
pretensioned strands. The girders are connected to each other through
an MC12x31 (MC310x46 metric) section which acts as permanent
bracing. The girders are connected to the pier caps through
330.2 × 508 × 15.875 mm elastomeric bearing known as 13-b bear-
ings. The side retainers are anchored using 25.4 mm-diameter anchor
bolts. The pier foundation consists of 3 rows of (7) HP10x42 (HP250x62
metric) piles with 1.2192 m between the rows.
4. Analyses
The IABs of interest are subjected to design-level earthquakes for
southern Illinois to evaluate their response. Two analysis types are
conducted for each IAB in both the bridge transverse and longitudinal
directions: static pushover analysis and dynamic analysis. Pushover
analysis aids in assessing the sequence of failure for components within
an IAB, as well as in assessing the nonlinear behavior of the IAB.
Through pushover analysis it is also possible to observe if the modeled
components are behaving appropriately and producing results con-
sistent with observed IAB damage. Dynamic analyses are performed
using 20 ground motions, which were developed specifically for the
design-level in southern Illinois. Results from the dynamic analyses
allow for observations to be made on how to improve future IAB seismic
designs.
4.1. Pushover analysis
The pushover analysis is conducted using displacement based on the
center-most node of the model at the composite deck-girder elevation
level and determining the scale factor of an applied load pattern that
would be required to achieve the target control node displacement. The
load pattern applied to the model is consistent with the distribution of
Unacceptable Limit States
Bearing Unseating – BU
Severe Steel Damage in Piers – SS
Severe Concrete Damage in Piers - CS
D.L. Kozak et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Table 4
Design parameters for the analyzed IABs.

Detail 3-Span Steel Superstructure 3-Span Prestressed Concrete Superstructure

Span Configuration 24.384 m – 36.576 m – 24.384 m 24.384 m – 36.576 m – 24.384 m

Girder Size 1.0922 m deep plate girder IL54-2438 prestressed concrete girdera
Girder Spacing 6 girders @ 2.2098 m spacing 6 girders @ 2.2098 m spacing
Deck Width 13.1572 m 13.1572 m
Deck Thickness 203.2 mm 203.2 mm
Diaphragm Members C15x40 (C380x60 metric) MC12x31 (MC310x46 metric)
Elastomeric Bearings 15-ab 13-bb
Retainer Anchor Bolt Details 31.75 mm diameter, grade 36 25.4 mm diameter, grade 36
Abutment Pile Detail 6 – HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric) 6 – HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric)
Pier Details 4–4.572 m tall columns per pier 4–4.572 m tall columns per pier
Pier Column Details 762 mm dia., 12-#10 reinf. bars 762 mm dia., 12-#10 reinf. bars
Pier Foundation Details 2 rows, spaced at 1.524 m, of 7 piles 3 rows, spaced at 1.2192 m, of 7 piles
Pier Pile Size HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric) HP10x42 (HP250x62 metric)

a
Refers to prestressed concrete shapes found in [43].
b
Further details provided in [42].

Fig. 8. 3-span steel IAB pushover analysis results.

masses within the model.
4.1.1. 3-Span steel IAB
The 3-span steel IAB’s pushover results are shown in Fig. 8. As in-
dicated by the achieved limit states, damage in the IABs takes place in
the abutments and pier columns under longitudinal loads, and in the
abutments, pier columns, and retainers under transverse loads. These
damage locations are consistent with observed damage to IABs in the
field after seismic events.
More specifically in the longitudinal pushover (Fig. 8a), yielding of
abutment piles (APY) and the first occurrence of failure of soil sur-
rounding the abutment piles (APS) occurs early. This abutment damage
is followed by a progressive increase of damage in both the pier column
concrete and steel reinforcement. The onset of moderate damage in pier
column concrete (CM) and steel (SM) occurs under similar displace-
ments and is the point at which the bridge’s overall stiffness severely
decreases, allowing for large displacements under relatively small force
increments. Once the pier column concrete and steel severe damage
limit states (CS and SS, respectively) both occur, a negative slope is seen
in the pushover curve, indicating that the bridge has achieved its peak
lateral load resistance.
Another interesting aspect of the longitudinal pushover curve is the
lateral load resistance contribution from the abutments and piers. As
shown in Fig. 8a, contributions from the two piers are extremely si-
milar, however there is a large discrepancy between the contributions
from the two abutments. This is due to the compressed abutment being
the one that is in contact with the backfill, allowing for an increased
load-carrying capacity. For the non-compressed abutment, it is being
pulled away from the backfill, meaning there is no contribution from
the backfill while the resistance comes solely from the post-yield
strength of the abutment piles (which, as described, yield early).
In the transverse direction (Fig. 8b), there is no effect from backfill,
allowing the abutment contributions to behave similarly. This lack of a
contribution from the backfill also leads to an increased importance for
the abutment piles and pier columns to resist lateral loads. As with the
longitudinal pushover, the transverse pushover has abutment pile
yielding (APY) and failure of soil surrounding abutment piles (APS)
occurring early. However, it does not occur until retainer engagement
(RE), and retainer yielding (RY) occurs at a similar point to abutment
pile yielding. Retainer engagement and yielding produces changes in
the slope of a pushover curve, however not as significant as the drop in
lateral load resistance capacity that occurs when pier columns experi-
ence moderate damage (CM and SM). The retainers never fail; instead,
the columns fail, acting as a fuse and preventing excessive loads from
being transferred through the retainers. This is not an ideal situation, as
retainers are easy to repair or replace while severe pier damage may
cause IAB failure, which is much less desirable.
4.1.2. 3-Span prestressed concrete IAB
The 3-span prestressed concrete IAB experiences similar damage to
the 3-span steel IAB despite having some significant differences in the
shape of the pushover curves. The damage is again found in the

177
D.L. Kozak et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Fig. 9. 3-span prestressed concrete IAB pushover analysis results.

abutments, pier columns, and retainers, which is consistent with ob-
served damage in IABs after an earthquake.
The longitudinal pushover behavior of the concrete IAB is very si-
milar to the steel IAB, as seen in Fig. 9a, with damage to the abutment
piles (APY and APS) occurring early followed by damage to the pier
columns. A significant change in the stiffness of the IAB, indicated by a
change in the pushover curve slope, occurs when moderate damage of
the pier columns occurs (CM and SM). This point of moderate pier
damage is also approximately where the peak lateral load capacity is
found with the pushover curve having a negative slope beyond that
point. The contributions from the various piers and abutments is also
similar in both bridges. Once again, the backfill significantly increases
the lateral load capacity of the compressed abutment as compared to
the non-compressed abutment which, draws its lateral resistance solely
from the piles.
The shape of the concrete IAB’s transverse pushover curve, seen in
Fig. 9b, varies significantly from the corresponding pushover curve for
the steel IAB. The most significant change is the steep drop in lateral
load capacity caused by the failure of the retainers (RE). Beyond the
retainer failure the sequence of limit state occurrences is similar with
retainer engagement and yielding (RE and RY) occurring first, followed
by abutment pile yielding (APY) and soil failure (APS), then beyond
retainer failure there is progressive damage to the pier columns. The
retainers likely fail due to their smaller anchor bolts than those in the
steel IAB. This damage sequence is preferable to the steel IAB’s se-
quence due to the simple replacement required for retainers and that
site appropriate ground motion time histories to be created that will
excite a variety of fundamental periods [31].
The components and their corresponding limit states were mon-
itored throughout the ground motion time histories to indicate whether
damage has occurred in them. The resulting achieved limit states were
recorded and the frequency of each limit state being achieved (out of 20
ground motion analyses) is presented in Table 5.
4.2.1. 3-Span steel IAB
For the steel IAB in the longitudinal direction, damage is mainly
observed in abutment piles, with yielding in all analyses at the design
level. Other common damage is observed in the soil surrounding
abutment piles, and some light damage is observed in pier columns.
These are acceptable results given that abutment pile yielding and pile-
soil failure are both acceptable limit states, and light pier column da-
mage is ideal due to its minimal impact on a column’s strength. While
abutment piles and their surrounding soil are not necessarily simple to
replace or repair, a bridge should still be operational under normal
loads if there is damage to these components.
Table 5
Limit state occurrences in dynamic analyses at the design-level.
Limit State Steel Superstructure Concrete Superstructure
Long. Tran. Long. Tran.

this retainer failure allows for pier damage to occur at larger dis- Backfill Failure - BF 0% 0% 0% 0%
placements. This latter point is seen by the moderate pier column da- Abut. Pile Yielding - APY 100% 100% 100% 100%
mage (CM and SM) and the peak lateral load capacity occurring at Abut. Pile-Soil Failure - APS 70% 30% 100% 100%
310 mm of control node displacement in the concrete IAB as opposed to Pile Cap-Abut. Failure - PA 0% 0% 0% 0%
Retainer Engagement - RE 0% 100% 0% 100%
139 mm in the steel IAB. Retainer Yielding - RY 0% 100% 0% 100%
Retainer Failure - RF 0% 0% 0% 100%
Bearing Sliding - BS 0% 0% 0% 0%
4.2. Dynamic analysis
Bearing Unseating - BU 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pier Pile Yielding - PPY 0% 0% 0% 0%
The two IAB models are subjected to 20 ground motions each in Pier Pile-Soil Failure - PPS 0% 0% 0% 0%
both the bridge longitudinal and transverse directions. The 20 ground Light Pier Steel Damage - SL 60% 40% 100% 100%
motions have been developed specifically for the city of Cairo, Illinois Moderate Pier Steel Damage - 0% 0% 75% 40%
SM
at a 1000-year return period hazard level. This hazard corresponds to Severe Pier Steel Damage - SS 0% 0% 5% 5%
the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Light Pier Concrete Damage - 35% 10% 100% 80%
(AASHTO) design hazard level [44], and Cairo was selected due to it CL
having the largest ground motion accelerations in Illinois. The ground Moderate Pier Concrete 0% 0% 85% 40%
Damage - CM
motions were developed by matching existing records to various con-
Severe Pier Concrete Damage 0% 0% 50% 15%
ditional mean spectra and then further propagating each time history - CS
through a soil profile appropriate for Cairo. This procedure allowed for

178
D.L. Kozak et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of the behavior of the abutment pile corner fibers at varying depths.
Yielding of piles occurs mainly at the interface with the pile cap,
since this is a region with the largest transfer of moments. This plastic
hinging area can be observed by comparing behavior of the top abut-
ment pile element to another element only 600 mm deeper, as shown in
Fig. 10, which compares observed stress-strain behavior at the four
corners of the piles. The top of the pile clearly yields, while at just over
600 mm deeper the piles remain linear elastic. This yielding acts as a
fuse to limit failure of the soil surrounding the piles, which is why that
limit state is only achieved in 70% of the analyses.
In the transverse direction, there is again consistent yielding of
abutment piles, but failure of the soil surrounding the piles is much less
common than in the longitudinal direction. Similarly, light damage to
the pier columns occurs less frequently. However, unlike in the long-
itudinal direction, the retainers engage and yield in every analysis. The
occurrence of these limit states is acceptable, and would be more ideal
if the abutment piles yielded less. The retainer behavior is an ideal limit
state and their contribution to the analysis results is very encouraging.
Less failure of soil surrounding the piles occurs since the piles are
the only components resisting transverse excitation at the abutments.
The backfill does not contribute in that direction, which means there
are larger loads and bending moments on the piles, causing them to
yield earlier and act as a fuse limiting the force transferred to the soil
after yielding. This shows that the piles are very important in the
transverse direction for this IAB.
Fig. 11. Behavior of all the retainers in each IAB subjected to the same, single ground motion in the transverse direction.
179
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
Fewer occurrences of pier damage can be attributed to the en-
gagement and yielding of the retainers, which limit the amount of force
transferred to the piers. However, as shown in Fig. 11a for all retainers
in the steel IAB under a single ground motion, the retainers do not fail
before some damage begins to occur in the pier columns. Pier damage is
light and not common though, indicating that the retainers effectively
protected them.
The increased occurrence of pier damage and failure of soil sur-
rounding abutment piles in the longitudinal direction (as opposed to the
transverse direction) can also be observed in the base shear vs. center
deck node displacement plots shown in Fig. 12a and b, which are for the
same representative ground motion. There is less damage in the
transverse analysis, leading to a more elastic response. In the long-
itudinal direction the bridge develops more damage, especially in the
piers, leading to a more nonlinear response.
Pinching behavior is observed in the longitudinal direction but not
in the transverse response. This is due to compaction of the backfill
causing a decreased overall bridge stiffness until a specific point (in-
dicated by a star in Fig. 12a) is reached and the backfill is once again
engaged, leading to an increase in bridge stiffness. This behavior is not
observed in the transverse direction due to the lack of any backfill
contribution.
Fig. 12a and b also show good relation to the pushover curves in
Fig. 8. Given that only light pier damage occurs in the steel IAB under
D.L. Kozak et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183

Fig. 12. Steel IAB longitudinal hysteretic response in the (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions, along with their accompanying deck center node time history response (c) and (d)
for a representative ground motion.

Fig. 13. Distribution of pier column strains for all IABs under all ground motions.

design-level ground motions, it is expected that there is not a large above.

amount of nonlinear behavior, which is indicated to occur after mod-
erate pier column damage in the pushover analysis. The base shear-
deck displacement plots match the pushover curves well, with the only
behavior not captured in the pushover analyses being the engagement
and compaction of backfill in the longitudinal direction, as explained
While the behavior in both directions indicates some energy dis-
sipation, the longitudinal direction is shown to be more ductile. This
ductility is apparent in the increased displacements that occur in the
longitudinal response when compared to the transverse response, as
observed in Fig. 12c and d. These time history responses also

180
D.L. Kozak et al.
demonstrate that due to the lack of any serious damage, the bridge deck
does not undergo any permanent deformations.
4.2.2. 3-Span prestressed concrete IAB
The damage to the concrete IAB when subjected to longitudinal
excitation is once again contained within the abutment and pier col-
umns. When compared to the steel IAB, the abutment damage is much
more severe and widespread with both abutment pile yielding and
failure of the soil surrounding the piles occurring in every design-level
analysis. There is also much more damage to the pier columns with 5%
of the analyses encountering severe reinforcing steel damage and 50%
of the analyses encountering severe concrete damage in the pier col-
umns. This severe damage in half of the analyses leads to the design-
level damage being unacceptable. Should there be severe pier column
damage there is a risk of column failure leading to the inability for the
bridge to accommodate any loads following the event.
The increased column damage in the concrete IAB can be put into
perspective by comparing the maximum strains in the pier column
concrete and steel with those from the steel IAB, as shown in Fig. 13. It
can be observed that there is much more strain imposed on the concrete
IAB pier columns. The larger amount of damage in both the abutments
and the piers can be attributed to the heavier superstructure in the
concrete IAB, which causes more inertial force in dynamic response. For
comparison, the weight per length of the steel IAB girders are about 17
kN/m while the concrete IAB girders weight per length is 78 kN/m.
In a similar manner to the longitudinal results, the transverse results
also indicate that the abutment piles always yield and the soil sur-
rounding the piles always fails at the design-level. Also similar to the
longitudinal results, there is much more pier column damage, though
only 15% of the simulations show severe concrete damage as opposed
to 50% under longitudinal excitation. In the concrete IAB, the larger
column strains, as seen in Fig. 13, and abutment forces are attributed to
the heavier superstructure.
The concrete IAB behavior is deemed unacceptable at the design
level due to the occurrence of severe pier damage, however the relative
scarcity of severe damage occurring in the transverse direction is more
encouraging than the longitudinal results. This decrease in the amount
of pier damage between the longitudinal and transverse analyses can be
attributed to the presence of the retainers limiting the force transferred
to the piers. Due to the smaller anchor bolts in the concrete IAB and the
larger inertial forces, the retainers do fail in all of the analyses, as seen
in Fig. 11b. This is ideal for dissipating energy and protecting the pier
columns from damage.
The base shear vs. center deck node displacement plots for the
concrete IAB are provided in Fig. 14a and b. Similar to the steel IAB, the
larger occurrences of pier damage in the longitudinal direction can be
shown to allow the bridge to reach a more significant level of nonlinear
behavior while it is less nonlinear in the transverse direction. This is
caused by the increased displacement required to reach moderate pier
damage in the transverse direction. Similarities between the steel and
concrete IAB responses also extend to the pinching of the longitudinal
response caused by the backfill engagement and compaction.
In comparison with the steel IAB it can also be observed that the
concrete IAB achieves larger deck displacements in both directions.
This is due to the increased amount of pier column damage and, in the
transverse direction, the failure of the side retainers. These larger deck
displacements and more severe damage limit states correspond well
with the pushover curves provided in Fig. 9. The large number of
moderate pier column damage occurrences allows for the nonlinear
behavior in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 14a), which corresponds to
the behavior in Fig. 9a beyond moderate pier damage. In the transverse
direction a change in bridge stiffness occurs in Fig. 14b which can be
related to the consistent failure of the bearing side retainers. This re-
sistance drop and change of stiffness is also observed in the pushover
curve of Fig. 9b.
While the plots in Fig. 14a and b demonstrate that there is perhaps
181
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
more energy dissipation and deck displacement occurring in the con-
crete IABs, it is important to note that some of the displacement is due
to permanent deformations in the column piers. These deformations can
be seen in Fig. 14a and c as a −400 mm displacement shift and in
Fig. 14b and d as a 100 mm displacement shift. These shifts demon-
strate the danger of achieving severe pier column damage, because
although there is more energy dissipation occurring, the offset at the
end of the event would lead the bridge to be unusable.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
An integral abutment bridge model was developed to effectively
incorporate numerous complex individual components. The bridge
model and its components have been described in detail, along with
limit states indicating damage of the components. The model was used
to analyze two IAB designs for southern Illinois using static pushover
and dynamic time history analyses appropriate for the design hazard.
Through static and dynamic analyses, it was shown that the bridge
models and specific component models behave effectively in capturing
overall IAB seismic behavior. Individual component responses were
based on experimental data and literature providing realistic models for
the components. Although a limitation of this model is that there is no
specific overall IAB seismic field behavior or testing to compare against,
the type of damage indicated in the pushover and dynamic analyses is
consistent with damage observed in IABs after earthquakes.
The analyses indicate a few key limit states that occur during
seismic events. Yielding of piles at the abutments is a main limit state,
which occurs in both the steel and concrete IABs for all dynamic ana-
lyses. Closely related to yielding of the abutment piles is failure of the
soil surrounding these piles, which often occurs in the dynamic analyses
for both bridges. This abutment pile damage is a limit state identified in
past studies as occurring in IABs during seismic events. Another major
location of damage that has been indicated in the past is to the pier
columns. Analyses in this study corroborate damage at this location and
indicate a substantial amount of light pier column damage in both
bridges and directions. Damage to the pier columns is found to be more
extreme in the concrete IAB, as it regularly experiences moderate and
severe pier column damage while the steel IAB only experiences light
damage. The final location of consistent damage is in the retainers of
both bridges when subjected to transverse excitation. Once again, the
damage is worse in the concrete IAB, which always experiences retainer
failure while the steel IAB only experiences retainer yielding. This can
be attributed to the smaller anchor bolts and heavier superstructure of
the concrete IAB.
Based on the analysis results, a few recommendations can be made
to better design the simple 3-span steel and concrete bridges analyzed
in this article. The first recommendation for both bridges is to increase
the abutment pile size. While failure of the abutment piles is not un-
acceptable, it is preferable to have them not yield in every design-level
ground motion (as the current design does). For the steel IAB, smaller
retainer anchor bolts are recommended in order to have retainer failure
occur and act as a fuse before excessive pier column damage is en-
countered. For the concrete IAB, a main observation is that due to the
significantly heavier superstructure, prestressed concrete bridges tend
to develop much larger inertial forces than steel bridges during seismic
excitation. Given this observation, it would be a prudent re-
commendation to increase the pier column size to accommodate these
increased inertial forces caused by the larger superstructure mass.
While these recommendations are appropriate for the specific IABs
presented in this article, it is necessary to look at a wider range of IAB
parameters in the future in order to determine broader trends for de-
veloping more general IAB seismic design recommendations and for
making comparisons to non-IAB seismic behavior. The modeling fra-
mework presented in this article is adaptable for carrying out a para-
metric study in the future while still providing realistic simulation of
integral abutment bridge seismic behavior.
D.L. Kozak et al.
Fig. 14. Concrete IAB longitudinal hysteretic response in the (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse directions, along with their accompanying deck center node time history response (c) and
(d) for a representative ground motion.
Acknowledgement
This paper is based on the results of ICT R27-133, Calibration and
Refinement of Illinois’ Earthquake Resisting System Bridge Design
Methodology: Phase II. ICT R27-133 was conducted in cooperation with
the Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT); Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT), Division of Highways; and the U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The con-
tents of this paper reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents
do not necessarily reflect the official views of policies of the ICT, IDOT,
or FHWA.
References
[1] White H. Integral abutment bridges: comparison of current practice between eur-
opean countries and the united states of America. New York, NY, USA: New York
State Department of Transportation; 2007.
[2] Paraschos A, Amde AM. A survey on the status of use, problems, and costs asso-
ciated with Integral Abutment Bridges. Better Roads 2011:1–20.
[3] IDOT. Bridge Manual. Springfield, IL, USA: Illinois Department of Transportation;
2012.
[4] IDOT. All Bridge Designers Memo 12.3: 2012 Integral Abutment Bridge Policies and
Details. Springfield, IL, USA: Illinois Department of Transportation; 2012.
[5] Kunin J, Alampalli S. Integral abutment bridges: current practice in the united
States and Canada. Albany, NY, USA: New York State Department of Transportation;
1999.
[6] Olson SM, Long JH, Hansen JR, Renekis D, LaFave JM. Modification of IDOT in-
tegral abutment design limitations and details. Springfield, IL, USA: Illinois
182
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
Department of Transportation; 2009.
[7] Itani AM, Peckan G. Seismic performance of steel plate girder bridges with integral
abutments. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration; 2011.
[8] Wood JH, Earthquake Design of Bridges With Integral Abutments. 6th International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, NZ, November
(2015).
[9] Waldin J, Jennings J, Routledge P. Critically damaged bridges & concepts for
earthquake recovery. 2012 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
Conference, Christchurch, NZ, January 2012.
[10] Olson SM, Holloway KP, Buenker JM, Long JH, LaFave JM. Thermal behavior of
IDOT integral abutment bridges and proposed design modifications. Springfield, IL,
USA: Illinois Department of Transportation; 2013.
[11] LaFave JM, Riddle JK, Jarrett MW, Wright BA, Svatora JS, An H, et al. Numerical
simulations of steel integral abutment bridges under thermal loading. J Bridge Eng
2016;21(10).
[12] Steelman JS, Fahnestock LA, Filipov ET, LaFave JM, Hajjar JF, Foutch DA. Shear
and friction response of non-seismic laminated elastomeric bridge bearings subject
to seismic demands. J Bridge Eng 2013;18(7):612–23.
[13] LaFave J, Fahenstock L, Foutch D, Steelman J, Revell J, Filipov E, et al.
Experimental Investigation of the Seismic Response of Bridge Bearings. Springfield,
IL, USA: Illinois Department of Transportation; 2013.
[14] Luo J, Fahnestock LA, Kozak DL, LaFave JM. Seismic analysis incorporating detailed
structure-abutment-foundation interaction for quasi-isolated highway bridges.
Struct Infrastruct Eng 2016;13(5):581–603.
[15] LaFave J, Fahnestock L, Foutch D, Steelman J, Revell J, Filipov E, et al. Seismic
performance of quasi-isolated highway bridges in illinois. Springfield, IL, USA:
Illinois Department of Transportation; 2013.
[16] Filipov ET, Revell JR, Fahnestock LA, LaFave JM, Hajjar JF, Foutch DA, et al.
Seismic performance of highway bridges with fusing bearing components for quasi-
isolation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1375–94.
[17] Filipov ET, Fahnestock LA, Steelman JS, Hajjar JF, LaFave JM, Foutch DA.
Evaluation of quasi-isolated seismic bridge behavior using nonlinear bearing
models. Eng Struct 2013;49:168–81.
[18] Vasheghani-Farahani R, Zhao Q, Burdette EG. Seismic analysis of integral bridge in
D.L. Kozak et al.
tennessee, including soil-structure interaction. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board
2010;2201:70–9.
[19] Zhao Q, Vasheghani-Farahani R, Burdette EG. Seismic Analysis of Integral
Abutment Bridges Including Soil-Structure Interaction. Structures Congress 2011, Las
Vegas, NV, April 2011.
[20] Franchin P, Pinto PE. Performance-based seismic design of integral abutment
bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:939–60.
[21] Kotsoglou AN, Pantazopoulou SJ. Assessment and modeling of embankment parti-
cipation in the seismic response of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq Eng
2009;7:343–61.
[22] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic Soil-pile-
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng
1999;125(9):750–9.
[23] Spyrakos C, Ioannidis G. Seismic behavior of a post-tensioned integral bridge in-
cluding soil-structure interaction (SSI). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2003;23:53–63.
[24] Teguh M, Duffield CF, Mendis PA, Hutchinson GL. Seismic performance of pile-to-
pile cap connections: An investigation of design issues. Electron J Struct Eng
2006;6:8–18.
[25] Frosch RJ, Kreger ME, Talbott AM. Earthquake Resistance of Integral Abutment
Bridges. West Lafayette, IN, USA: Indiana Department of Transportation; 2009.
[26] McKenna F, Mazonni S, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake engineering si-
mulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA, USA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California; 2006.
[27] Scott MH, Fenves GL. Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-
column elements. J Struct Eng 2006;132(2):244–52.
[28] Kowalsky MJ, Priestly MJN, Seible F. Shear and flexural behavior of lightweight
concrete bridge columns in seismic regions. ACI Struct J 1999;96:136–48.
[29] Kowalsky MJ. Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge col-
umns. J Struct Eng 2000;126(8):869–78.
[30] Revell J. Quasi-Isolated Highway Bridges: Influence of Bearing Anchorage Strength
on Seismic Performance. M.S. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
2013.
[31] Kozak DL, Luo J, Olson SM, LaFave JM, Fahnestock LA. Modification of ground
motions for use in Central North America. J Earthq Eng dx 2017. http://dx.doi.org/
183
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 170–183
10.1080/13632469.2017.1387190.
[32] Wilson DW. Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction in Liquefying Sand and Soft Clay.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA, USA 1998.
[33] Matlock H. Correlation for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay”, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 1970.
[34] Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Third Edition
New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[35] API. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms – working stress design. Washington, DC, USA: American Petroleum
Institute; 2002.
[36] Holloway, K. (2012) “Illinois Integral Abutment Bridges: Behavior Under Extreme
Thermal Loading and Design Recommendations”, M.S. Dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
[37] Vintzeleou EN, Tassios TP. Mathemtical models for dowel action under monolithic
and cyclic conditions. Mag Concr Res 1986;38(134):13–22.
[38] Tassios TP. Physical and mathematical models for re-design of damaged structures.
Introductory Report, IABSE Symposium, Venice, 29-77 1983.
[39] Shamsabadi A, Ashour M, Norris G. Bridge abutment nonlinear force-displacement-
capacity prediction for seismic design. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng
2005;131(2):151–61.
[40] Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M. Nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge structure
interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng
2007;133(6):707–20.
[41] Kozak DL, LaFave JM, and Fahnestock LA. Seismic Behavior of Single-Span Integral
Abutment Bridges,” 3rd Huixian International Forum on Earthquake Engineering for
Young Researchers, Champaign, IL, August 2017.
[42] IDOT All Bridge Designers Memo 15.6: New Elastomeric Bearing Sizes, Illinois
Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL, USA 2015.
[43] IDOT All Bridge Designers Memo 15.2: New Precast Prestressed Concrete IL-Beam
Section and Revisions to the I-Beams and Bulb T-Beams, Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield, IL, USA 2015.
[44] AASHTO. Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. Washington, DC,
USA: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials; 2011.