THE CORRELATION BETWEEN 2D AND 3D …docs.trb.org/prp/16-5953.pdfAlbhaisi and Nassif 1 THE...

Albhaisi and Nassif 1

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN 2D AND 3D ANALYSIS OF INTEGRAL

ABUTMENT BRIDGES

Suhail Albhaisi*, P.E., Ph.D.

Jacobs Engineering Group

2 Penn Plaza Suite 603, New York, NY 10121

Phone: (212) 946-2325, Fax: (212) 302-4645

[email protected]

Hani Nassif, P.E., Ph.D., Professor

Rutgers Infrastructure Monitoring and Evaluation (RIME) Laboratory

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

96 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854

Phone: (848) 445-4414, Fax: (732) 445-8268

[email protected]

* Corresponding Author

Revision No. 0

Word count: 2,319

Abstract: 231< 250

Figures & Tables: 12 x250 = 3,000

Total: 5,550

Submission Date: 08/01/2015

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comparison between analysis results from Two Dimensional (2D) and 1

Three Dimensional (3D) Finite Element (FE) models for Integral Abutment Bridges (IABs). 2

The models were developed to determine the displacements and the rotations induced by 3

thermal loading in steel IABs. The comparison was part of a parametric study that investigated 4

the effect of substructure stiffness on the performance of short and medium length steel IABs 5

built on clay and sand under thermal load effects. Various parameters such as pile size and 6

orientation, pile material, and foundation soil stiffness were considered in the study. Detailed 7

2D and 3D FE models using the software LUSAS were developed to capture the overall 8

behavior of IABs. The developed 3D FE model was calibrated using field measurements 9

obtained from a previous study. Using the calibrated models, a parametric study was carried 10

out to study the effects of the above parameters on the performance of IABs under thermal 11

loading using the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 12

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) temperature ranges. The comparison shows good 13

correlation between the results from 2D and 3D FE models in the analysis of IABs. The 14

correlation is stronger when analyzing IABs under contraction (negative thermal change). 2D 15

models tend to underestimate the displacements and overestimate the rotations at both the 16

abutment and the piles when analyzing IABs under expansion (positive thermal change). 17

18

Key Words: 19

Integral Bridge 20

Finite Element 21

2D, 3D 22

Correlation 23

H-Piles 24

Simple Approach 25

Soil-Structure Interaction 26


INTRODUCTION

Expansion joints and end bearings in conventional (jointed) bridges are expensive and require 1

special handling during construction. They also require periodic inspection and maintenance and 2

may need to be replaced several times throughout the bridge life. This is especially true for areas 3

with considerable snow amounts where deicing chemicals are used throughout the cold season 4

and where snowplows could repeatedly hit and damage the joints. Furthermore, water and 5

deicing chemicals would penetrate through the expansion joints to cause extensive deterioration 6

to the bearings, superstructure, and substructure components. Leakage at joints accounts for 70% 7

of the deterioration at the end of the girders (1). Consequently, expansion joints and bearings in 8

bridges have provided considerable construction and maintenance challenges for most 9

transportation agencies. For the above reasons, integral abutment (Jointless) bridges are 10

becoming increasingly popular in the USA and in many parts of the world and are considered as 11

a more economical alternative to conventional bridges. A sketch for a typical single-span IAB is 12

shown in Figure 1. 13

14

FIGURE 1. Typical single-span integral abutment bridge.

Wing

Wall

Single Row of

Vertical Piles

Continuous Deck slab

Cycle Control

Joint Approach

Slab Girder

Stub

Abutment


More IABs are built every year in the United States and all over the world. According to the 1

Tennessee department of transportation (TDOT), 85% of the new bridges built in the State are 2

integral abutment bridges (2). In the United Kingdom, British Highways Agency Design Manual 3

for Roads and Bridges recommends that all new bridges less than 60 m (200 feet) in length and 4

skews not exceeding 30° shall be designed as integral bridges. A 2004 survey suggests that the 5

number of IABs has increased in the past decade with most transportation agencies planning to 6

replace jointed bridges with integral bridges when conditions permit (1). The survey also shows 7

that 70% of the States use bearing type steel H-Piles to support integral bridges without 8

consensus on the orientation of the piles with respect to the centerline of the bearings. To further 9

reduce the stiffness of the substructure, many States enclose the top part of the H-Piles by a 10

sleeve filled with loose sand or crushed stones. Some States (e.g. Iowa) consider, in addition to 11

steel H-Piles, prestressed concrete piles to support the abutment (3). Although drilled shaft 12

foundations are considered much stiffer than other deep foundation types and are not allowed to 13

be used by many States in the foundation of integral bridge, Hawaii used drilled shafts to support 14

integral abutments because of the severe corrosion conditions in the State that prohibits the use 15

steel H-Piles (4). 16

Researchers have studied the effect of substructure stiffness on the performance of 17

concrete IABs using validated three-dimensional (3D) FE models (5, 6). Researchers have also 18

studied the effect of substructure stiffness on the performance of steel IABs under thermal loads 19

(7, 8). The majority of these studies were carried out using simplified 2D models without 20

verification. Useful guidelines are available for the design of IAB’s (9, 10, 11). These guidelines 21

provide useful design examples based on experience in the design of IABs, but do not provide 22

theoretical approach for the analysis. The authors conducted a detailed parametric study to 23

investigate effect of substructure stiffness on the performance of steel IAB’s using 3D FE models 24

(12, 13). This paper presents the correlation between the analysis results from Two Dimensional 25

(2D) and Three Dimensional (3D) Finite Element (FE) models for IABs. 26

BRIDGES IN THE STUDY 27

Two IABs were considered in the study. The bridges depict two integral bridges recently 28

constructed in New Jersey. The two bridges were slightly modified to suit the parametric study. 29

The first bridge is a 38-meter (127 foot) single span steel plate girder bridge and the second 30

bridge is a two-equal span steel plate girder bridge with a total length of 90 meters (300 feet). 31

The cross sections of the single-span bridge and the two-span continuous bridge are shown in 32

Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. The lengths of the two bridges cover a substantial range of 33

common IABs’ lengths. 34

35

36


FIGURE 2. Cross section of (a) Single-span (short) bridge (b) Two-span (long) bridge.


THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 1

To accurately capture the behavior of IABs, the entire parametric study was carried out using 3D 2

Finite Element (FE) Models. Using 3D models captures the behavior of integral bridges in the 3

transverse direction and gives better results than using 2D models. The software LUSAS was 4

used for the analysis throughout the research (14). A typical 3D FE model for the single-span 5

bridge is shown in Figure 3. AASHTO LRFD recommended temperature ranges for steel 6

bridges in cold climates were used in the study (15). 7

ment. 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

FIGURE 3. A typical 3D FE model for the single-span bridge.

Diaphragm

Soil Springs Abutment

H-Pile Deck Underside

Isometric View

Steel Plate Girder

Stiffener


TWO-DIMENSIONAL (2D) FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 1

For comparison purposes, 2D FE models were developed using 2D beam elements for all the 2

structural elements. A typical interior girder, 2 piles, and the tributary widths of the deck and 3

abutment were included in the 2D models. A typical 2D model for the Single-Span Bridge is 4

shown in figure 4. 5

6

7

8

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION 9

The soil-pile interaction and the abutment-backfill interaction were discussed in details in 10

previous publications (12, 13). 11

MODEL VALIDATION 12

The field measurements from the new Scotch Road Bridge (16) were used to calibrate and 13

validate the 3D FE model. The model validation was discussed in details in previous publications 14

(12, 13). 15

16

Figure 4 A typical 2D FE model for the single-span bridge.


2D VERSUS 3D 1

This section presents a comparison between the analysis results obtained from the 3D model to 2

those obtained from the 2D model. The comparison focuses mainly on the displacements and 3

rotations along the abutment and the pile. Figures 5a and 5b show the displacement and rotation 4

along the abutment and the pile for the interior location in the short bridge during contraction. 5

The ratios between the displacements and rotations at the top of the abutment and the piles for 6

the same case are summarized in Table 1. Figure 5a shows a general agreement between the 7

results from the 2D and the 3D models. The two types of analysis give closer results for soft soils. 8

9

FIGURE 5a. Displacement (Contraction) at Interior Location 2D Versus 3D 10

(38-m Bridge, Clay, 3m Abutment, HP310X125 Weak Orientation). 11 12

Figure 5b shows also a general agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models. 13

For the rotation of the pile, the analysis results are closer in soft soils and for the rotation of the 14

abutment; the analysis results are closer in stiff soils. 15

16

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 5b. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Contraction) at Interior Location 2

(38-m Bridge, Clay, 3m Abutment, HP310X125 Weak Orientation). 3

4

TABLE 1a. 2D versus 3D (Short Bridge – Contraction - Interior Location). 5

Consistency of Clay Top of Abutment(2D/3D) Top of Pile (2D/3D)

Displacement Rotation Displacement Rotation

Soft 1.06 1.06 1.00 0.35

Medium 1.01 1.01 0.92 1.47

Stiff 0.97 0.97 0.86 1.11

Very Stiff 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.35

6

Figures 5c and 5d show the displacement and rotation along the abutment and the pile for the 7

exterior location in the short bridge during contraction. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 2. For the displacement at 9

exterior locations, there is less agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models as 10

can be seen in Figure 5c especially in stiff soils. 11

12

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 5c. Displacement (Contraction) at Exterior Location 2D Versus 3D 2


4 For the rotation along the abutment at exterior locations, there is a good agreement between the 5

results from the 2D and the 3D models but not for the rotation along the exterior piles in stiff 6

soils as can be seen in Figure 5d. 7

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

to

p o

f A

bu

emen

t (m

)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 5d. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Contraction) at Exterior Location 2


4

TABLE 1b. 2D versus 3D Results (Short Bridge - Contraction – Exterior Location). 5



Soft 0.95 1.07 0.94 1.22

Medium 0.90 1.28 0.84 1.09

Stiff 0.86 1.09 0.75 0.99

Very Stiff 0.83 0.99 0.68 0.92

6

Figures 6a and 6b show the displacement and rotation along the abutment and the pile for the 7

interior location in the short bridge during expansion. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 3. In general, there is less 9

agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models for the expansion cases especially 10

in soft soils as can be seen in Figures 6a and 6b. These disagreements can be attributed to the 11

different contributions of the backfill in the two types of analysis. 12

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 6a. Displacement (Expansion) at Interior Location 2D Versus 3D 2


-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-2 0 2 4 6 8 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 6b. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Expansion) at Interior Location 2


4 TABLE 1c. 2D versus 3D Results (Short Bridge - Expansion – Interior Location). 5



Soft 0.90 1.49 0.56 1.49

Medium 0.89 1.27 0.57 1.26

Stiff 0.88 1.10 0.57 1.10

Very Stiff 0.87 0.99 0.58 0.99

6


exterior location in the short bridge during expansion. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 4. Similar to the expansion at 9

interior location case, there is a significant disagreement between the results from the 2D and the 10

3D models as can be seen in Figures 6c and 6d. These disagreements can also be attributed to the 11

different contributions of the backfill in the two types of analysis. 12

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 6c. Displacement (Expansion) at Exterior Location 2D Versus 3D 2


-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 6d. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Expansion) at Exterior Location 2


4

TABLE 1d. 2D versus 3D Results (Short Bridge - Expansion – Exterior Location). 5

Consistency of Clay

Top of Abutment

2D/3D

Top of Pile

2D/3D


Soft 0.80 1.41 0.49 1.40

Medium 0.80 1.24 0.48 1.20

Stiff 0.79 1.09 0.47 1.05

Very Stiff 0.78 0.98 0.45 0.94

6 Figures 7a and 7b show the displacement and rotation along the abutment and the pile for the 7

interior location in the long bridge during contraction. The ratios between the displacements at 8

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 5. Figure 7a shows a general 1

agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models. The two types of analysis give 2

closer results for soft soils. 3

4

5

FIGURE 7a. Displacement (Contraction) at Interior Location 2D Versus 3D 6


8 Figure 7b shows also general agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models. The 9

analysis results are closer in soft soils for the rotation of the abutment and the piles at interior 10

locations. 11

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 7b. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Contraction) at Interior Location 2


4

TABLE 2a. 2D versus 3D (Long Bridge – Contraction - Interior Location). 5



Soft 1.01 3.11 0.98 1.39

Medium 0.99 1.52 0.90 1.21

Stiff 0.96 1.28 0.84 1.10

Very Stiff 0.94 1.14 0.78 0.30

6 Figures 7c and 7d show the displacement and rotation along the abutment and the pile for the 7

exterior location in the long bridge during contraction. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 6. 9

There are significant disagreements between the results from the 2D model and the 3D models 10

for the abutment displacement during bridge contraction at exterior locations as can be seen in 11

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


Figure 7c. The significant disagreement between the two models continues through the upper 1

part of the piles. 2

3

FIGURE 7c. Displacement (Contraction) at Exterior Location 2D Versus 3D 4


There are also significant disagreements between the results from the 2D model and the 3D 7

models for the abutment and pile rotation during bridge contraction in stiff soils as can be seen in 8

Figure 7d. 9

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 7d. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Contraction) at Exterior Location 2


4

TABLE 2b. 2D versus 3D Results (Long Bridge - Contraction – Exterior Location). 5



Soft 0.94 0.83 0.93 0.85

Medium 0.91 1.29 0.84 1.08

Stiff 0.88 1.29 0.74 1.05

Very Stiff 0.86 1.20 0.66 0.99

6

Figures 8a and 8b show the displacement and rotation along the abutment and the pile for the 7

interior location in the short bridge during expansion. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 7. In general, there is less 9

agreement between the results from the 2D and the 3D models for the expansion cases especially 10

in soft soils as can be seen in Figures 8a and 8b. 11

12

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

top

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 8a. Displacement (Expansion) at Interior Location 2D Versus 3D 2


-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-5 0 5 10 15 20 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 8b. 2D Versus 3D, Rotation (Expansion) at Interior Location 2


TABLE 2c. 2D versus 3D Results (Long Bridge - Expansion – Interior Location). 5



Soft 0.94 1.64 0.77 1.52

Medium 0.93 1.42 0.74 1.29

Stiff 0.92 1.24 0.71 1.13

Very Stiff 0.90 1.11 0.68 1.02

6


exterior location in the short bridge during expansion. The ratios between the displacements at 8

the top of the abutment for the same case are summarized in Table 8. Similar to the expansion at 9

interior location case, there are significant disagreements between the results from the 2D and 10

the 3D models as can be seen in Figures 8c and 8d. 11

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 8c. Displacement (Expansion) at Exterior Location 2D Versus 3D 2


-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Displacement (mm)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


1

FIGURE 8d. 2D Versus3D, Rotation (Expansion) at Exterior Location 2


4 TABLE 2d. 2D versus 3D Results (Long Bridge - Expansion – Exterior Location). 5



Soft 0.86 1.58 0.69 1.47

Medium 0.85 1.46 0.65 1.27

Stiff 0.84 1.32 0.60 1.12

Very Stiff 0.83 1.19 0.55 1.00

6

7

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 D

ista

nce

fro

m t

op

of

Ab

uem

ent

(m)

Rotation X103 (rad)

Soft Clay 2D

Soft Clay 3D

Medium Clay 2D

Medium Clay 3D

Stiff Clay 2D

Stiff Clay 3D

Very Stiff Clay 2D

Very Stiff Clay 3D


Figures 9 and 10 show the stress distribution in interior and exterior piles for the short and long 1

bridges respectively. 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

FIGURE 9a. Stress (N/m2) Distribution in the Piles (Contraction)

(38-m Bridge, Soft Clay, 3m Abutment, HP310X125 Weak Orientation).

FIGURE 9b. Stress (N/m2) Distribution in the Piles (Contraction)

(38-m Bridge, Stiff Clay, 3m Abutment, HP310X125 Strong Orientation).

9

12

13

14

15

Interior

Exterior

10

11

9

9

12

13

14

15

Interior

Exterior

10

11

9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

16

17

18

Interior

19

Exterior

14

15

9

FIGURE 10a. Stress (N/m2) Distribution in the Piles (Expansion)

(90-m Bridge, Stiff Clay, 3m Abutment, HP360X152 Weak Orientation).

16

17

18

Interior

19

Exterior

14

15

9

FIGURE 10b. Stress (N/m2) Distribution in the Piles (Expansion)

(90-m Bridge, Stiff Clay, 3m Abutment, HP360X152 Strong Orientation).


CONCLUSIONS 1

This paper presents a comparison between analysis results from Two Dimensional (2D) and 2

Three Dimensional (3D) Finite Element (FE) models for Integral Abutment Bridges (IABs). The 3

models were developed to determine the displacements and the rotations induced by thermal 4

loading in steel IABs. Based on the comparison, the following conclusions could be made: 5

- In General, there is good correlation between the results from 2D and 3D FE models in the 6

analysis of IABs. 7

- The correlation between the 2D and 3D FE models is strong when analyzing IABs under 8

contraction (negative thermal change). 9

- 2D models tend to underestimate the displacements and overestimate the rotations at both the 10

abutment and the piles when analyzing IABs under expansion (positive thermal change). 11

12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13

The 3D model in this research was validated using the data from a study sponsored by the New 14

Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) (16) that is gratefully acknowledged 15

16

REFERENCES 17

1. Maruri, R.F. and Petro, S.H. Integral Abutments and Jointless Bridges (IAJB) 2004 18

Survey Summary. Proceeding of the FHWA Conference on Integral Abutment and 19

Jointless Bridges, Baltimore, 2005. 20

2. Wasserman, E.P. A Brief History of Concrete Bridge Construction in Tennessee. ASPIRE, 21

the Concrete bridge Magazine, fall 2009, pp 46-48. 22

3. Abendroth, R. E., Greimann, L. F., LaViolette, M. D., (2007). “An Integral Abutment 23

Bridge with Precast Concrete Piles”. Final Report, IHRB Project TR-438. Center for 24

Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University. 25

4. Ooi, P. S. K., Lin, X. and Hamada, H.S. Field Behavior of an Integral Abutment Bridge 26

Supported on Drilled Shafts. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2010, 27

pp 4-18. 28

5. Huang, J., Shield, C. and French, C. “Parametric Study of Concrete Integral Abutment 29

Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2008, pp 511-526. 30

6. Laman, J.A., Kim, W.S., Larson, T.D. Monitoring of Integral Abutment Bridges and 31

Design Criteria Development. Final Report FHWA-PA-2009-005-PSU002 .The 32

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2009. 33

7. Albhaisi, S.M. Maximum Lengths of Integral Abutment Bridges Based on the Strength of 34

Abutments and the performance of Steel H-Piles under Cyclic Thermal Loading. Master 35

Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, Peoria, 36

IL, 2003. 37

8. Dicleli, M., Albhaisi, S.M. Estimation of Length Limits for Integral Bridges Built on 38

Clay. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2004. pp 572-581. 39


9. Najm, H., Albhaisi, S., Nassif, H., Khoshkbari, P., Gucunski, N., (2005). “Seismic 1

Analysis of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Embankments, and Integral Abutments”. 2

Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT). Report number FHWA-3

NJ-2005-002. Rutgers, The State University of new Jersey. Piscataway, New Jersey. 4

10. Vermont, Agency of Transportation (VTrans)., (2008). Integral Abutment Bridge Design 5

Guidelines, 2nd Edition. (2008). VTrans, Integral Abutment Committee. VTrans, 6

Structures Section . Montpelier, Vermont. 7

11. Yohchia, C., (1997). "Important considerations, guidelines, and practical details of 8

integral bridges", Journal of Engineering Technology, v14, n1, p 16-19. 9

12. Albhaisi, S. Effect of substructure stiffness on the performance of integral abutment 10

bridges under thermal loads. Doctoral Dissertation. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 11

New Jersey, 2012. 12

13. Albhaisi, S., Nassif, H., and Hwang, E. Effect of Substructure Stiffness on Performance 13

of Steel Integral Abutment Bridges Under Thermal Loads. Transportation Research 14

Record, Vol. 2313, Issue 2012 Structures, 2013, pp 22-32. 15

14. LUSAS V14. Finite Element Analysis Software. Finite Element Analysis Ltd. United 16

Kingdom, 2010. 17

15. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO. LRFD 18

Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010. Washington, D. C. 19

16. Hassiotis S., S., Khodair, Y., Roman, E. and Dehne, Y. Evaluation of Integral Abutments. 20

Final Report, FHWA-NJ-2005-025. New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2005. 21

Date post:	14-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangxuyen
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN 2D AND 3D …docs.trb.org/prp/16-5953.pdfAlbhaisi and Nassif 1 THE...

Documents