Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 49

MnDOT LRFD Integral &

Semi–Integral
Abutments
LRFD Bridge Design Workshop
June 12, 2007

David Conkel, P.E.


State Aid Bridge Engineer
Presentation Overview

ƒ The Jointless Bridge


ƒ Integral Abutment
ƒ Semi-Integral Abutment
ƒ Typical Design Details
Presentation Overview

ƒ The Jointless Bridge


ƒ Integral Abutment
ƒ Semi-Integral Abutment
ƒ Typical Design Details
The Jointless Bridge
Construction of Choice
Why a Jointless Bridge?
ƒ Superstructures with deck joints still predominate, but
the trend Nationally is for a jointless bridge.

ƒ Eliminates the inherent problems associated with


installing, maintaining, and repairing deck joints and
bearings

ƒ Fewer construction joints and simple concrete


forming, which results in rapid construction, and
reduced initial costs
Why a Jointless Bridge?
ƒ The FHWA promotes the usage of jointless bridges
where appropriate

ƒ Our sister states, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota


and Wisconsin all design jointless bridges whenever
possible

ƒ MnDOT’s experience, field observations, and years


of successful service have demonstrated that
jointless bridges do perform well.
Presentation Overview

ƒ The Jointless Bridge


ƒ Integral Abutment
ƒ Semi-Integral Abutment
ƒ Typical Design Details
Integral Abutments
ƒ The integral abutment bridge is characterized by:
ƒ Abutment type that eliminates expansion joints in the
deck

ƒ Beams cast into a concrete end diaphragm which is


rigidly connected to a concrete pile cap

ƒ Pile cap is supported by a single row of piles

ƒ Pile stiffness and flexibility accommodate thermal


expansion and contraction of superstructure
MnDOT Integral Abutment
Limits
ƒ Max. bridge length w/ H-pile: 300 feet
ƒ Max. bridge length w/ C.I.P. pile: 150 feet
ƒ Max. beam depth: No limit
ƒ Max. wingwall length: 12 feet
ƒ Typical abutment depth (Bridge seat to bottom of
footing): 3’-0” below grade, 2’-0” exposed
ƒ Max. skew angle: skew permitted will vary
linearly from 45 degrees for a 100 foot bridge to
20 degrees for a 300 foot bridge.
Integral Abutment Skew
Limits
Maximum Skew of Integral Abutments
50
Skew = 45
45 Skew = -0.125*(Length) + 57.5
Skew, degrees

40

35

30

25

20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Overall Length of Bridge, feet
Integral Abutment Limits
Nationally
ƒ Steel Girders
ƒ Bridge Length: up to 650 feet
ƒ Skew: up to 70 degrees
ƒ Prestressed Concrete Girders
ƒ Bridge Length: up to 1175 feet
ƒ Skew: up to 70 degrees
ƒ Note : MnDOT use limits are occasionally
exceeded
ƒ Successful experience will drive future changes in
the limits
Integral Abutment Pile
Design/Analysis
ƒ Typically orient H-piling such that the weak
axis bending occurs longitudinal to the bridge.
ƒ Pile penetration into abutment wall is 2’-6” for
a “fixed head” condition
ƒ Piles are designed to carry vertical loads
equally and there currently is no explicit
requirement to consider bending moment in
piles.
Integral Abutment Pile
Design/Analysis

WEAK AXIS

2’-6”
Pile Design/Analysis
ƒ A bridge with a total length in excess of 300 feet
will have larger movement demands and may
require the need for special design
considerations, for example:
ƒ Bridge abutments with anticipated movements in
excess of 1 inch may require strong axis orientation
to prevent a plastic hinge under weak axis bending
ƒ Bridge abutments with movements in excess of 1” to
1.5” may require the pile analysis to consider all
applicable forces including thermal, skew effects and
deflections of the superstructure.
Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

3375 ⋅ 4
Tpullout = = 13.5 kips
1000
Back Face Vertical Bar and
Longitudinal Deck Bar Design
Integral Abut. Design/Analysis
Integral Design/Analysis

ƒ Note, the decision was made to delete


the design requirement for the
longitudinal deck and back face vertical
reinforcement at the abutment to
withstand 1/2 the fixed-end moment
due to live load.
Integral Design/Analysis

ƒ Change was based on:


ƒ Feedback from MnDOT bridge designers
ƒ The requirement was too conservative, and
required an excessive amount of longitudinal
deck reinforcement.

ƒ Comparison to pile stiffness


ƒ Research indicates that weak axis pile bending
will decrease the top tensile stress in the slab
caused by dead load and live load.
Integral Design/Analysis

ƒ Change was based on:


ƒ Requirements from other states
ƒ Based on our discussions at the North Central
States Consortium “Bridge Design Committee”,
a majority of the states do not calculate fixed
end moments or provide any special design for
the superstructure-abutment joint.

ƒ Based on experience and design, I/DOT simply


uses #5@12” placed in the top mat to account
for the fixed end moment due to live load.
Presentation Overview

ƒ The Jointless Bridge


ƒ Integral Abutment
ƒ Semi-Integral Abutment
ƒ Typical Design Details
Semi-Integral Abutments
Semi-Integral Abutments
ƒ The semi-integral abutment bridge is characterized by:

ƒ Abutment type that eliminates expansion joints in


the deck

ƒ Similar to the integral abutment except concrete end


diaphragm is not connected to concrete pile cap

ƒ Thermal movement is accommodated by expansion


bearings and a small vertical gap between the end
diaphragm and pile cap

ƒ Pile cap is typically supported on multiple rows of


piles or spread footings
Use of Semi-Integral
Abutment
ƒ Semi-integral abutments are commonly
used on designs that require:
ƒ Jointless bridge
ƒ Skews less than 30 degrees
ƒ Medium height abutment walls
ƒ Spread foundations
ƒ Supported on drilled shafts
ƒ Require multiple rows of piles
MnDOT Semi-Integral
Abutment Limits
ƒ MnDOT, semi-integral abutment limits have not
been entirely established. Limits on max bridge
length and max grade of bridge will be determined

ƒ Max. skew angle permitted will be 30 degrees to


prevent the possibility of damage to wingwall from
non eccentric passive pressure which can force
deck into wingwall

ƒ As we gain more confidence with the semi-Integral


abutment style, the limits will be determined.
Semi-Integral Abutment
Limits Nationally

ƒ Nationally, semi-integral abutment use is


limited to:
ƒ Max. skew concrete beams: 45 degrees

ƒ Max. skew steel beams: 40 degrees

ƒ Max. span concrete beams: 200 feet

ƒ Max. span steel beams: 200 feet

ƒ Max. bridge length: 500 feet


MnDOT Semi-Integral
Abutment
ƒ Note, MnDOT’s new
semi-integral abutment
is very similar to I/DOT’s
semi-integral abutment.

ƒ Superstructure expands
and contracts over a
fixed abutment.
Expansion Detail

1 - 24” WIDE WATERPROOF MEMBRANE SYSTEM. MEMBER PLACEMENT SHALL


(1)
BE SUCH THAT A 1” WRINKLE IN THE MEMBRANE WILL BE FORMED OVER THE
JOINT OPENING TO ALLOW MOVEMENT
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

PASSIVE EARTH
PRESSURE
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

2’ LIVELOAD SURCHARGE
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis
ƒ Requirements:
ƒ Approach panel length (20 foot min.) to be greater than
wingwall length
ƒTo minimize approach panel length, keep the abutment stem
height to a maximum of approximately 15 feet
ƒ B910 to be used for all abutments

ƒ Wingwall outside of barrier and approach panel

ƒ Traffic barrier placed on approach panel

ƒ Backwall designed for full passive earth pressure


Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis
ƒ Requirements:
ƒ Maximum expansion length has not been established
(MnDOT has recently designed a bridge with a 250’
length, currently not under construction)

ƒ Skew up to 30 degrees, shear lug required

ƒ Single span, one abutment to be fixed


Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

Diaphragm
PASSIVE EARTH
PRESSURE Backwall
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

2’ LIVELOAD SURCHARGE
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

ƒ Diaphragm backwall:
ƒ Design for passive soil pressure, which results
from bridge expansion

ƒ Consider the backwall to be a continuous beam


spanning between girders to determine horizontal
reinforcement
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

Diaphragm
PASSIVE EARTH
PRESSURE Shear Lug
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

2’ LIVELOAD SURCHARGE
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis
ƒ Diaphragm Shear Lug:
ƒ Design for passive soil pressure, which results from
bridge expansion

ƒ Consider the shear lug to be a cantilever beam to


determine vertical reinforcement and shear
reinforcement requirements

ƒ Special design consideration should be given to


bridges on steep profile grades where the bridge
may have a tendency to migrate downhill bringing
lug into contact with abutment stem.
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

PASSIVE EARTH
PRESSURE

Abutment
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

2’ LIVELOAD SURCHARGE

Stem
Semi-Integral Abutment
Design/Analysis

ƒ Abutment Stem:
ƒ Design for active earth pressure and a 2’ live load
surcharge

ƒ Consider the abutment stem as a cantilever beam


to determine vertical reinforcing

ƒ Horizontal reinforcement in the abutment stem will


be for temperature & shrinkage only
Integral vs Semi-Integral
Abutments
ƒ Abutment type preference:
ƒ 1st choice: Integral Abutments

ƒ 2nd choice: Semi-Integral Abutments

ƒ Last choice: Conventional tall or short parapet


abutments with deck joint
Presentation Overview

ƒ The Jointless Bridge


ƒ Integral Abutment
ƒ Semi-Integral Abutment
ƒ Typical Design Details
Railing Inside of Wingwall
Elevation/Section
Approach Slab Support
ƒ No longer specified,
slab connection was
accomplished with
top horizontal tie
bars.

ƒ With settlement, the


slab panel behaved
like a cantilever
allowing tension
cracks to develop at
the ends of the tie
bars.
Approach Slab Support
ƒ To alleviate this
problem, a bar
configuration that
facilitates flexible
rotation is opted ½” x 2” Bit. Felt
for.

ƒ This design
provides a more
positive connection
allowing inevitable
rotation to occur.
Approach Panel Joints for
Jointless Bridges
ƒ Joints for integral or semi-integral abutments
are placed at the end of the approach panels
ƒ Typically use
an E8S Joint
Detail, but for
longer bridges,
an expansion
joint device
may be needed
Bridge Approach Treatment
for Jointless Bridges
ƒ A well graded backfill material should be used
behind the abutments.

ƒ A granular backfill offers two benefits:


ƒ Easily compacted in close spaces
ƒ Aids in carrying water away from abutments

ƒ MnDOT has developed a new standard for approach


treatment for integral abutments.
ƒ Details similar to those of the South Dakota DOT
ƒ Standard should be available very soon
Bridge Approach Treatment
for Integral Abutments

2
(1) – NATURAL GROUND OR SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL
3
(2) – SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL MODIFIED SHALL 1
COMPLY WITH SPEC. 3149.2B2, MODIFIED TO 10% OR
LESS PASSING THE NUMBER 200 SIEVE. 4

(3) – SUBSURFACE PIPE DRAIN


(4) - SUBSURFACE PIPE DRAIN. SEE BRIDGE STANDARD
DETAIL B910 FOR DETAILS.

ƒ Note: The designer is encouraged to coordinate with


road design to assure they are providing the correct
backfill treatment for integral abutments.
Summary

ƒ If all the requirements/limitations are met on your


proposed bridge project, integral abutments
should be utilized
ƒ More information on the semi-integral abutment
bridge is coming. We anticipate their common use
on both trunk highway and local roads
ƒ As we become more comfortable in use of the
jointless bridges, current limits set on span length,
bridge length, skew, abutment height, and etc…
will be adjusted accordingly.
Summary

ƒ Methods of analysis, details, construction, and


policy on jointless bridges will continue to evolve.

ƒ Additional guidelines will be incorporated as


additional research and experience is brought
forward.
ƒ Some other possible opportunities:
ƒ integral abutments with curved bridges
ƒ spread footings on MSE fills
ƒ retrofitting existing bridges to eliminate joints
Questions