Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Volume 7 Issue 5
Abstract:
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE applied to high-pier bridge seismic design of mountain. Some
of the approaches are - The use of limit-displacement
Kulkarni et al (2014) studied the seismic performance apparatus in piers and abutments; Rational design of block
evaluation of a railway bridge with tall piers. The study about piers and abutments; The use of seismic isolation
mainly focused on the central span of bridges having 100-m support which includes the using of laminated rubber support,
high piers with a primary aim to examine the applicability of PTFE support, LRB, etc.; The use of ductility damping pier,
the response reduction factors, R, given in seismic design ductility damping members, which have sufficient ductility
codes, for bridges with tall piers. The bridge was designed enable bridge form a stable plastic hinge under strong
with increasing values of response reduction factors and its earthquake.
performance were evaluated considering different detailing
practices. Moment curvature behaviour and shear resistance Chaturvedi (2007) carried out comparative study of
of hollow reinforced concrete piers was also discussed. The Alternative Designs for abutments of bridges considering
effect of foundation flexibility on seismic performance of the gravity type and frame type cantilever abutment for
bridge was explored by performing a sensitivity study with comparative study keeping bearing capacity of soil , bridge
varying modulus of subgrade reaction of the founding soil. It span , height of abutment and cost of material as the
was observed that the response reduction factors prescribed parameters for selected study. It was found that the average
in the Indian code also yield satisfactory performance for tall rate of increase in total material cost in the gravity type of
bridges. Foundation–soil flexibility had a significant effect on abutment as compared to the frame type abutment is higher
the displacement of tall bridges, and affected the results in a for increase in height, lower for increase in bridge span and
change of seismic performance level of the considered bridge, decrease in bearing capacity. The rate of decrease in total cost
in some cases. of materials with increase in bearing capacity of soil is higher
in the frame type of abutment as compared to the gravity type
Karantzikis and Spyrakos (2000) investigated the effects of of abutment but the cost of gravity abutments is much less
the soil-abutment interaction on seismic analysis and design than the cost of frame type abutments upto a height of 10 m.
of integral bridges. Past experience and recent research has The increase in the average rate of increase in the total cost-
indicated that soil-structure interaction plays a very important of material per m increase in bridge span for gravity type
role on seismic response of bridge structures. Abutments abutment is higher as compared to frame type of abutment for
attract a large portion of seismic forces, particularly in the same increase in height. Gravity type of abutments is not at
longitudinal direction. Therefore, participation of backfill soil all suitable for spans beyond 16 m as its size increases
at the abutments must be considered. A design driven enormously in that case. For larger bridge spans, frame type
methodology to model the abutment stiffness for either linear of abutment can be considered as an alternative.
or non-linear analysis, considering the backfill and the pier
foundation, was presented. A three-span bridge with Matsunaga et all (2004) studied the seismic performance of
monolithic abutments was selected to demonstrate the abutment with cast-in-place concrete pile foundation on an
proposed procedures. Parametric studies demonstrated that, if embankment having a height of more than 20 meters. The
the bridge is analysed with the proposed methodology instead authors investigated its dynamic behavior using numerical
of a simple procedure that ignores backfill stiffness reduction, analysis and model experiment and used Time history
the calculated forces and moments at the piers are greater by response analysis by finite element method considering the
25%-60% and the displacements by 25%-75%, depending on non-linear properties of pile and ground. Based on the results
soil properties. of investigation, the authors proposed a practical design
formula, which could easily check the seismic performance
Patel N and Raval H (2015) described a methodology for the of the abutment and pile during large scale earthquakes. The
analysis and design of Reinforced Concrete (RC) tall bridge formula applies the concept of static slide stability analysis,
piers having different Solid Circular cross sections, which are where the seismic horizontal coefficient that is equivalent to
typically used in deep valley bridge viaducts. Cost dynamic response is derived using two correction factors
comparison was carried out for tall pier road bridges varying proposed by the authors based on results of on-line
30m to 100m in height and also varying grade of concrete experiment. The above literatures give information on
from M40, M50, M60 and M70. It was found that. It was seismic design of tall piers, soil-abutment dynamic
found that as the height of the pier increases, % required steel interaction, and principles adopted in construction of high
increases and decreases with increasing Concrete grade. embankment bridges. However it is necessary to have a
Percentage cost contribution of steel varies from 16 to 50 % comprehensive evaluation and techno-economic comparison
of total cost as compared to its % requirement only 0.8 to 3.1 of several alternatives of high abutment configuration to
Qingxiang Zheng and Wenhua Liu (2010) studied the deduce the most suitable choice for bridges with tall
seismic design of high piers for mountain bridges and abutments.
summarized some details of seismic measures, which can be
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY regular bridge. The bridge design is supposed to meet the
serviceability limit state under Design Basis Earthquake
In this paper attempt is to study the static and dynamic
(DBE) as well as Ultimate Limit State under Maximum
performance of different abutment configurations with
Considered Earthquake (MCE). SLS is to ensure that the parts
counterforts for tall Railway Bridges. The alternatives under
of the bridge intended to contribute to energy dissipation shall
study are-
undergo minor damage without giving rise to needs for
i. T-type / Cantilever Abutment (No reduction of traffic or immediate repair whereas ULS is to
counterforts) ensure that the bridge shall retain its structural integrity and
ii. Counterfort Abutment with 2 Counterforts have adequate residual resistance although considerable
below bearing damage may occur in portions of the bridge. The seismic
iii. Counterfort Abutment with 2 End forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal
Counterforts and 1 central Counterfort directions. For this two separate analysis shall need to be
performed for design seismic forces along two orthogonal
The parameters evaluated and studied post analysis are:- directions namely-± ELx ± 0.3Ely and ± 0.3ELx ± Ely. The
effect of vertical seismic component on substructure may be
• Deflection at under static loads and dynamic
neglected in Zone II and III. For regular bridges and special
loads
regular bridges, the code recommends use of Seismic
• Solid Stresses under static and dynamic
Coefficient Method or Response Spectrum Method for
loads
analysis and Design. The Active Earth pressure in case of
• Resulting Foundation Pressure
abutment and retaining walls shall need to be suitably
• Factor of Safety against Sliding increased for dynamic increment in seismic condition.
The comparison of above alternatives shall determine the
effect of providing/increasing the number of counterforts in V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
an abutment configuration. The result shall help the designer A. DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE UNDER STUDY
to choose the most suitable alternative for abutment
configuration on a high bank. The bridge under study is a proposed Railway Major Bridge
in Western India under Chhota Udepur to Dhar New BG Line
IV. IRS CODE PROVISIONS & rail project in Western Railway. The total proposed span of
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEISMIC the bridge is 3 x 30.5m with RCC-Steel composite girder
DESIGN superstructure and neoprene pad bearings. The general
The Indian Railway Standard code for Earthquake Resistant topography of the project terrain is hilly and mountainous
Design of bridges 2017 deals with the earthquake resistant wherein high banks are unavoidable. For the said bridge
design of regular bridges where the seismic actions are height of abutment from rail formation level to bottom of
mainly resisted at abutments or through flexure of piers. foundation is around 30m where the abutment is founded on
Girder bridges, T-beam bridges, Truss bridges, hammer head an isolated footing at a depth of 6m with hard rock strata. The
bridges on straight alignment having single or multiple bridge falls under Seismic Zone III as per classification of IS
simply supported spans with each span less than 120m and 1893. The design discharge of the stream is 1587 cumecs with
pier height above foundation less than 30m is classified as a a maximum flow depth of around 8m.
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
FORMATION LVL
30000
HFL
G.L
B. DESIGN PARAMETERS
• Reference Codes: IRS Seismic Code-2017, IRS Bridge rules-2014, IRS Concrete bridge code-2014 & IRS Substructure
code-2013.
• Exposure Condition:- Moderate
• Material Properties:- M35 grade concrete and Fe 500 grade Steel.
• Seismic Zone:- Zone III
• Response Reduction Factor:- 2.5
• Importance Factor:- 1.5
• Damping Coefficient:- 5%
• Safe Bearing Capacity of soil – 88T/sqm
• Angle of Internal Friction of backfill – 35 degrees
• Type of Soil under Foundation for Seismic Response – Hard Soil
• Design Loads:-
o Dead Load of Superstructure (DL),
o Super Imposed Load of Superstructure (SIDL),
o Self-weight of Structure,
o Live Load of Track,
o Tractive Effort/Braking Force,
o Active Earth Pressure of Backfill,
o Active Earth Pressure due to surcharge
o Seismic Forces
• Load Combinations:-
CASE I Normal (DL+SIDL+LL)
CASE II b Normal + Longitudinal +30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ ELx + 0.3ELy)
CASE II c Normal + Longitudinal -30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ ELx - 0.3ELy)
CASE II d Normal - Longitudinal -30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - ELx - 0.3ELy)
CASE II e Normal - Longitudinal +30 % of Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - ELx + 0.3ELy)
CASE II f Normal + 30 % of Longitudinal + Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ 0.3ELx + ELy)
CASE II g Normal + 30 % of Longitudinal - Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL+ 0.3ELx - ELy)
CASE II h Normal - 30 % of Longitudinal - Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - 0.3ELx - ELy)
CASE II i Normal - 30 % of Longitudinal + Transverse Seismic (DL+SIDL+LL - 0.3ELx + ELy)
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
Considering above parameters, the stability analysis of 3 combination and seismic load combinations. The seismic
alternative configuration of abutment has been carried out analysis using Seismic Coefficient Method is carried out in
manually using excel sheets and then modelled using MIDAS Excel to arrive at the resultant load and stresses. The seismic
CIVIL. The Finite Element Model has been prepared using analysis using Response Spectrum Method is carried out in
3D solid elements which is then utilised to determine MIDAS CIVIL software
maximum deformation at bearing level under static loads
The abutment models were analysed using MIDAS Civil software and MS Excel. The results are tabulated below
60
30 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
20 14.28 14.18 14.39 14.39 14.18 13.99 13.99 14.63 14.63
8.09 8.07 8.11 8.11 8.07 8.03 8.03 8.32 8.32 3 COUNTERFORT
10
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
0
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 5. Summary of maximum deflection in longitudinal direction δx (mm)
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
The summary of maximum deflection of the abutment for different load combinations is presented in Table 1 and Table 2. In the
present study it is observed that the as the number of counterforts in abutment configuration is increased the maximum deflection
in longitudinal direction of the structure is significantly diminished.
B. MAXIMUM STRESSES
10 8.812 8.947
8.258 8.669 8.336 8.258
Tresca Shear Stress N/mm2
10 9.071 9.048
8.36 8.711 8.577
9 8.287 8.287
7.664 7.648
Von Mises Stress N/mm2
8 CANTILEVER
ABUTMENT
7
6 4.861 4.875 4.859 4.859 4.875 4.919 4.861 4.919 4.861
5 2 COUNTERFORT
3.815 3.815
4 3.01 3.246 3.246 SYSTEM
2.803 2.803
3 2.359 2.359 ABUTMENT
2 3 COUNTERFORT
1 SYSTEM
0 ABUTMENT
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 7. Summary of Maximum Maximum Von Mises Stress (N/mm2)
The summary of maximum solid stresses in the abutment for different load combinations is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. In the
present study it is found that the as the number of counterforts in abutment configuration is increased the maximum stresses in
resulting in the structure decrease significantly.
100.00 CANTILEVER
ABUTMENT
Foundation Presure T/m2
80.00
60.00 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
40.00 ABUTMENT
20.00 3 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM
ABUTMENT
0.00
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx
Figure 8. Summary of Maximum Foundation Pressure (T/m2)
The summary of maximum pressure under foundation is tabulated in Table 5. In the present study it is observed that the foundation
pressures in all 3 configurations in different load combinations are nearly same. Hence increase of counterforts does not significantly
affect the resulting foundation pressure.
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
D. FACTOR OF SAFETY
7
Factor of Safety against Sliding
6
CANTILEVER
5 ABUTMENT
4
3 2 COUNTERFORT
SYSTEM ABUTMENT
2
1 3 COUNTERFORT
0 SYSTEM ABUTMENT
NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL
+ EQx + + EQx - - EQx - 0.3 - EQx + + EQy + + EQy - - EQy - 0.3 - EQy +
0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQ y EQ y 0.3 EQ y 0.3 EQx 0.3 EQx EQx 0.3 EQx
The summary of calculated safety factor against sliding is summarized in Table 6. In the present study it is observed that the number
of counterforts in abutment configuration does not significantly affect the overall factor of safety against sliding.
E. OVERALL COST
Tentative Cost
₹ 9,659,793.32
₹ 9,507,932.56
₹ 7,975,320.26 3 Counterfort
₹ 10,000,000.00
2 Counterfort
₹ 5,000,000.00
Cantilever
₹-
Figure 10. shows the abstract of quantity and cost for 3 different abutment configurations
The quantity estimate for earthwork, concreting and steel reinforcement for the 3 abutment structures was worked out. It was
observed that there is no significant difference in the cost between 2 counterfort structure and 3 counterfort structure. However the
cost of counterfort configuration is found to be around 21% higher than the conventional cantilever type abutment.
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5
VII. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS that an abutment with 3 counterfort system is most
rigid and undergoes least deformation. In case of rail
The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis
bridges the formation width is usually 7.85m and
procedure and results-
therefore abutment width is also restricted to 7.85m.
1. From the deflection study of the structure under all Hence it is not practicable to provide more than 3
load combinations it is observed that the maximum counterforts.
longitudinal deflection occurs due to lateral earth 7. It is observed from the study that the deformation of
pressure on the abutment in static case. The abutment under Dead Load and Live Load are
deflection due to static lateral earth pressure is about insignificant as compared to the deformation for
75% of the total deflection. Lateral Earth Pressure and Surcharge Pressure.
2. The comparison of the 3 configurations shows that Hence it is safe to say that in tall abutment structures,
deformation in the abutment structure significantly the earth pressure and seismic forces govern the
decreased with the addition of counterforts to the design requirements. Further, if the angle of internal
system. The deflection of 3 counterfort system is just friction of backfill is increased by blending of
17% of the total deflection in the cantilever type granular material the Coulombs Active Earth
system without counterforts. As the stiffness of the Pressure coefficient can be reduced which will also
system is enhanced with the inclusion of reduce the stresses and moments.
counterforts, the overall deflection is reduced. The 8. The Coulombs Active Earth Pressure coefficient
permissible deflection limits in IRS Concrete Bridge (Ka) is influenced by several factors among which
Code are laid down as to such an extent which will wall angle is one of the factors and determines the
not affect adversely the appearance or efficiency of shape of the failure wedge. In case of cantilever
the structure. In such context, the counterfort system abutment configuration, the wall can be vertical and
is found to be more efficient. thus the wall angle is zero. However for counterfort
3. In the present study M30, M35 and M40 grade of configuration due to the inclined back face of
concrete is considered for design and analysis and counterfort, the failure plane is pushed backwards.
gives satisfactory results. For taller structures Therefore the wall angle increases which in turn
requiring more strength and durability analysis with increases the Ka value and resulting lateral pressure
higher grade of materials can be performed and on the abutment. Thus it is found in the present study
studied. Increasing the grade of concrete for tall that the counterfort arrangement attracts more lateral
structures also increases the Elastic Modulus and earth pressure.
thus decreases the deformation response of the 9. In the present study Seismic Zone II and III has been
structure. It is found that with increase of concrete considered. Displacement is not always the best
grade from M35 to M40 the deflection of structure indicator of bridge performance during large
reduced by 6-7%. earthquakes. For structures in more vulnerable
4. From the solid stress analysis and plastic failure Seismic Zones (Zone IV and V) further study using
criterion it is found that the resulting stresses in the Time History Method and Non Linear Pushover
abutment stem are reduced with addition of Analysis Methods of Seismic Design need to be
counterforts. The stresses in the 3 counterfort taken up for appropriate assessment of the design
configuration are 1/3 rd of the stresses in the alternatives.
cantilever configuration. Reduction in stresses will 10. In The 3 counterfort system, the two end
lead to lower crack widths and avoid chances of counterforts can also function as a part of the square
corrosion of steel. Thus the counterfort system is return to retain the embankment fill thus reducing
also effective in enhancing the durability of the the overall cost of the abutment with wing
structure. wall/square return configuration.
5. In the present study it is observed that introduction 11. A comparative cost analysis of the 3 configurations
of counterforts to the tall abutments increases the was further studied to determine the financial
stiffness of the structure, however it does not implication of the design alternatives. It observed
significantly affect the pressure below foundation that the counterfort structure is costlier than a
and factor of safety against sliding. conventional cantilever structure. 3 counterfort
6. In the present study for a 30m tall abutment of a configuration abutment was found to be 21%
railway bridge founded on hard soil, it was observed costlier than the cantilever configuration structure.
International Journal of Advanced and Innovative Research (2278-7844) /
Volume 7 Issue 5