T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 1

DESIGN ILLUSTRATION BRIDGE ABUTMENT DESIGN

T Christie, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
M Glendinning, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cardiff, UK
J Bennetts, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
S Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK

Abstract
This paper provides a calculation showing how the heel length and overall length of the base
slab of a conventional cantilever gravity abutment can be determined in accordance with the
requirements of the Eurocodes and relevant non-contradictory information[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6].
Sliding resistance, bearing resistance and overturning stability are all considered.
The calculations illustrate the requirements of the Eurocodes in regard to loading, partial
factors, combination of actions and other issues which require a somewhat different approach
from that used with pre-Eurocode designs.

Notation
The symbols used in the calculations are as for the Eurocode and PD 6694-1. Other symbols
are defined in the text of the calculations or identified in the Figure 1.

The Design Problem

An 8m high, 12m wide abutment of a multispan continuous bridge is shown in Figure 1. It is
required to determine the heel length (Bheel) and the overall base length (B) of this abutment
necessary to satisfy the requirements of sliding resistance, bearing resistance and overturning
stability specified in the Eurocodes. The abutment is subject to three notional 3m wide lanes
of traffic surcharge.
The characteristic actions and soil parameters applied to the abutment are as follows:
Permanent actions
Weight of steel beams
Weight of concrete deck
Weight of surfacing
Actions for traffic group gr2
Maximum vertical traffic reaction
Uplift due to traffic on adjacent span
Braking and acceleration action
UDL surcharge (from PD 6694-1 Table 5)
Line load surcharge (from PD 6694-1 Table 5)

50
72
36

Vtraffic
Utraffic
Hbraking

100
30
50
20Ka
h
F 2 x 330 Ka

kN/m
kN/m
kN/m

kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/lane

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 2

Soil parameters:
Granular backfill
Weight density
Angle of shearing resistance

bf
'bf

18
35

kN/m

Clay foundations
Weight density
Undrained shear strength
Angle of shearing resistance
Critical state angle of shearing resistance
Overburden pressure (q) = bf x Zq

cu
'
'cv
q

18
100
27
23
12

kN/m
kN/m

kN/m

The initial dimensions of the foundations are to be based on traffic load group gr2 in which
the characteristic value of the multi-component action is taken as the frequent value of Load
Model 1 in combination with the frequent value of the associated surcharge model, together
with the characteristic value of the braking and acceleration action, (see the UK National
Annex to BS EN 1991-2:2003, NA.2.34.2).
Wind is not required to be considered in combination with traffic model gr2 and thermal
actions are not considered to be significant and are therefore neglected in these preliminary
calculations.
The water table is well below foundation level and need not be considered, but it is required
to check sliding resistance and bearing resistance at STR/GEO for both the drained and the
undrained condition.
As no explicit settlement calculation is to be carried out at SLS it is required to be
demonstrated that a sufficiently low fraction of the ground strength is mobilised (see BS EN
1997-1:2004, 2.4.8(4)). This requirement will be deemed to be satisfied if the maximum
pressure at SLS does not exceed one third of the characteristic resistance (see PD 6694-1,
5.2.2).

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 3

Transverse Dimensions
Abutment width Wabut = 12m

Y= 1.5

Notional lane widths Wlane = 3m

X=0.25

The traffic on the third

notional lane is subject to
a 0.5 lane factor so that the
effective number of lanes Nlane
used in the surcharge
calculation is 2.5 (see UK
National Annex to BS EN 19912:2003, NA 2.34.2)

Zq
P

Bheel
B

Figure 1. Base slab design for a gravity cantilever bridge abutment

Methodology for Preliminary Design

Calculations are carried out "in parallel" for the SLS characteristic combination of actions and
for STR/GEO Combinations 1 and 2, using Design Approach 1 (see BS EN 1997-1:2004,
2.4.7.3.4.2). Partial factors on actions are taken from the UK National Annex to BS EN
1990:2002, Table NA.A2.4 (B) and (C), partial factors for soil parameters are from the UK
National Annex to BS EN 1997-1:2004, Table A.NA.A.4 and factors from the UK National
Annex to BS EN 1990:2002, Table NA.A2.1. The preliminary calculations are carried out on
a "metre strip" basis
The following procedure was used for the preliminary design:
1. Calculations were carried out "in parallel" for the SLS characteristic combination and for
STR/GEO Combinations 1 and 2. This allowed a side-by-side comparison of the three limit
states to be made and repetitive calculations to be minimised.
2. The following actions were calculated:
(a) The total horizontal action on the wall (H) due to active earth pressure, traffic
surcharge (factored by 1) and braking and acceleration (see Table 1).
.
(b) The minimum vertical reaction due to deck reaction (VDL;inf) and uplift caused by
traffic on remote spans (U) (see Table 2).
(c) The maximum vertical reaction due to the weight of the deck and traffic (see Table
3).

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 4

(d) The vertical pressure exerted by the backfill and the base slab (bfZ). (For
convenience in these preliminary calculations, the density of the concrete in the base
slab and abutment wall was considered to be the same as the density of the backfill
(bf)).
3. The length of the heel (Bheel) required to provide enough weight to resist sliding for the
drained foundation was found as follows:
The sliding resistance due to the weight of the deck less traffic uplift (Rvx) was taken
as (VDL;inf - U)tan'cv. The required sliding resistance due to the weight of the backfill
and abutment was therefore H-Rvx. The weight of the abutment and backfill required
to provide this resistance was therefore equal to (H-Rvx)/tan'cv and this had to equal
BheelbfZ. The required value of Bheel therefore equalled (H-Rvx)/(bfZtan'cv) and this
equals (H-Rvx)/(bfZ) as in Table 2.
4. As it was recognised that the loads on the toe and the use of the correct density of concrete
would increase the sliding resistance, the selected figure of Bheel in Table 2 was taken as
slightly less than the figure of Bheel obtained from the calculation.
5. For undrained foundations the total overall base length for sliding, (B1) was taken as Hd/cu;d
as in Table 2 (see BS EN 1997-1:2004, Equation 6a).
6. The required overall base length is also dependent on other factors such as the requirement
to keep the load within the middle third at SLS and within the middle two-thirds at ULS, the
bearing resistance for the drained and undrained condition and in some circumstances
(although not for this structure) for resistance to overturning. In all these calculations the
eccentricity of the vertical action is required. To obtain this it is convenient to take moments
about the back of the heel (point P on Figure 1) rather than the centre of the base, because the
bearing resistance calculations are iterative, but the moments about the back of the heel do not
alter with varying toe lengths, provided the value of Bheel is not changed. This allows multiple
iterations to be carried out with minimal change to the data.
7. Moments about P were calculated (see Tables 4 and 5). The distance of the line of action
from P is eheel, where eheel = M/V and M is the total moment about P and V is the total vertical
load. It can be shown that to satisfy the SLS middle third condition (see PD 6694-1, 5.2.2),
the overall base length (B2) must be 1.5 eheel, and to satisfy the ULS middle two-thirds
condition (see BS EN 1997-1:2004, 6.5.4), the overall base length (B3) must be 1.2 eheel (see
Table 5).
8. To determine the overall base length (B) required to provide adequate bearing resistance for
the undrained and drained conditions, an iterative calculation with increasing values of B was
carried out, starting with the maximum value of the base length found from the sliding
calculations (i.e the largest of B1, B2, or B3) and increasing progressively until the bearing
resistance for the undrained and drained conditions drained and the toe pressure limitation at
SLS were all satisfied.

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 5

9. The selected value of B and the calculations in Table 6 and 7 are based on the final
iteration, that is the minimum value of B necessary to satisfy the bearing resistance
requirements. The calculations largely replicate the equations given in BS EN 1997-1:2004,
Annex D.
Notes

The abutment is assumed to be transversely stiff and so the traffic loads can be

distributed over the whole width of the abutment (see PD 6694-1, Table 5 Note C)
For convenience in the preliminary design, the density of the concrete in the base slab
and wall is considered to be the same as the density of the backfill (bf).
It should be noted that the same partial factor G is applied to the vertical and
horizontal earth pressure actions (see PD 6694-1, 4.6). This is only likely to be
relevant in a sliding resistance calculation if STR/GEO Combination 1 is more critical
than Combination 2.
In these calculations a model factor, Sd;k = 1.2 has been applied to the horizontal earth
pressure at ULS in order to maintain a similar level of reliability to previous practice
(see PD 6694-1, 4.7).
In Tables 1 to 7 the figures given in the SLS column are the characteristic values of
material properties and dimensions and the characteristic or representative values of
actions per metre width. The figures in the STR/GEO columns are the design values
unless otherwise indicated.

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 6

Horizontal actions

SLS

Height of abutment Z

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

8.00

8.00

8.00

Partial factor on soil weight

G;sup

1.00

1.35

1.00

Backfill density = bf;k G;sup

bf,d

18.0

24.3

18.0

1.00

1.00

1.25

'bf;d

35.0

35.0

29.3

Ka

0.27

0.27

0.34

Model factor Sd:K

Sd:K

1.00

1.20

1.20

Design active pressure action

bf;dKaSd;KZ/2 = Hap;d

Hap;d

156

253

237

kN/m

Surcharge UDL = hWlaneNlane/Wabut

= (20Ka) x 3 x 2.5/12 = h;ave

h;ave

3.39

3.39

4.29

kN/m2

Surcharge UDL action h;ave x Z = Hsc;udl

Hsc;udl

27.1

27.1

34.3

kN/m

Hsc;F

37.3

37.3

47.2

kN/m

Hsc;comb

64.4

64.4

81.6

kN/m

Partial factor on surcharge Q

1.00

1.35

1.15

1 = 0.75 for surcharge in traffic group grp2

0.75

0.75

0.75

Hsc;d

48.3

65.2

70.4

kN/m

Hbraking;k

50.0

50.0

50.0

kN/m

1.00

1.35

1.15

Hbraking;d

50.0

67.5

57.5

kN/m

Hd

254

386

365

kN/m

'bf;k = 35;

Partial factor M on tan('bf;k)

tan-1(tan('bf;k)/M) = 'bf;d
Active pressure coefficient Ka incl. (M)
(1-sin'bf;d)/(1+sinbf;d)

kN/m3

Surcharge Line Load/m = F Ka Nlane / Wabut

= 2 x 330Ka x 2.5/12 = Hsc;F
Combined surcharge/m Hsc;udl + Hsc;F =
Hsc;comb

Design surcharge = Hsc;d = Hsc;comb..Q

Characteristic braking action Hbraking;k
Partial factor on braking Q
Braking action /m Hbraking:d= Hbraking;k Q
TOTAL DESIGN HORIZONTAL
ACTION Hd = Hap;d + Hsc;d + Hbraking;d

Table 1. Horizontal actions

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 7

Minimum vertical actions and sliding

resistance
Height of abutment Z

SLS

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

8.00

8.00

8.00

Characteristic deck weight 50+72+36 = 158

VDL;k

158

158

158

kN/m

Inferior partial factor on deck weight

G;inf

1.00

0.95

1.00

VDL;inf;d

158

150

158

kN/m

Uk

30.0

30.0

30.0

kN/m

Q;sup

1.00

1.35

1.15

group grp2

0.75

0.75

0.75

Factored uplift from traffic Uk.Q = Ud

Ud

22.5

30.4

25.9

kN/m

Minimum vertical loads from deck and

traffic Vx;d = VDL;inf;d Ud

Vx;d

136

120

132

kN/m

1.00

1.00

1.25

0.42

0.42

0.34

Rvx;d

57.5

50.8

44.9

kN/m

Hd

254

386

365

kN/m

Reqd resistance from backfill [Hd Rvx;d]

Rreq

197

335

320

kN/m

Density of backfill (Table 1) bf;d

Frictional shear stress due to backfill: [dbf;d
Z]

b;df

18.0

24.3

18.0

kN/m3

61.1

82.5

48.9

kN/m2

Bheel;req

3.22

4.06

6.55

Bheel

6.25

6.25

6.25

cu

1.4

Undrained shear strength cu:d = cu;k /cu

cu:d

100.0

100.0

71.4

kN/m2

OVERALL BASE LENGTH B1 = Hd/cu;d

B1

2.54

3.86

5.11

Inferior weight of deck

Uplift from traffic
Superior partial factor on uplift

1= 0.75 for vertical traffic actions in traffic

'cv;k = 23;

Partial factor M on tan('cv;k)

Coefficient of friction tan('cv;k)/M = d

Sliding resistance due to Vx d.Vx;d = Rvx;d
Horizontal action from Table 1, Hd

Required Bheel= Rreq / (d bf;d Z)

SELECTED VALUE OF HEEL Bheel
Rounded down, see Methodology para. (4)
cu;k = 100;

Partial factor M on cu;k

Table 2. Minimum vertical actions and sliding resistance

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 8

Maximum vertical actions

Height of abutment Z

SLS

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

8.00

8.00

8.00

Selected value of Bheel (Table 2)

Bheel

6.25

6.25

6.25

Partial factor on steelwork G;sup

G;sup

1.00

1.20

1.00

50.0

60.0

50.0 kN/m3

1.00

1.35

1.00

72.0

97.2

72.0 kN/m3

1.00

1.20

1.00

36.0

43.2

36.0 kN/m3

VDL;sup;d

158

200

158 kN/m

Vtraffic;k

100.0

100.0

100.0 kN/m

1.00

1.35

1.15

0.75

0.75

0.75

Vtraffic;d

75.0

101

86.3 kN/m

Density of backfill bf;d (Table 1)

bf;d

18.0

24.3

18.0 kN/m3

Selected width of heel Bheel (Table 2)

Bheel

6.25

6.25

6.25 m

Design weight of backfill/m

Vbf;d = bf;d Z Bheel

Vbf;d

900

1215

900 kN/m

Vmax;d

1133

1517

1144 kN/m

Weight of steelwork = 50G;sup

Partial factor on concrete G;sup

G;sup

Weight of concrete = 72G;sup

Partial factor on surfacing G;sup

G;sup

Weight of surfacing = 36G;sup

Superior weight of deck/m VDL;sup;d
Characteristic vertical action from traffic
Vtraffic;k
Partial factor on traffic Q

1 = 0.75 for vertical traffic actions in traffic

group grp2
Design traffic action/m
Vtraffic;d =Vtraffic;k Q

TOTAL MAXIMUM VERTICAL LOAD

Vmax;d = VDL;sup;d + Vtraffic;d+ Vbf;d

Table 3. Maximum vertical actions

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton 9

Moments about the underside of the base

due to horizontal actions
Active Pressure action Hap;d including Sd;K
(Table 1)

SLS

Hap;d

Lever arm = Z/3

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

156

253

237

kN/m

2.67

2.67

2.67

Active Moment Map;d = Hap;d Z/3

Map;d

416

674

633

kNm

Surcharge UDL action Hsc;udl (Table 1)

Hsc;udl

27.1

27.1

34.3

kN/m

4.00

4.00

4.00

Msc;udl

108

108

137

kNm

Hsc;F

37.3

37.3

47.2

kN/m

Lever arm = Z

8.00

8.00

8.00

Hsc;F Z = Msc;F

Msc;F

298

298

378

kNm

Msc;comb

406

406

515

kNm

Q for surcharge

1.00

1.35

1.15

1 = 0.75 for surcharge in traffic group grp2

0.75

0.75

0.75

Msc;d

305

412

444

kNm

Hbraking;d

50.0

67.5

57.5

kN/m

La;b

6.50

6.50

6.50

Mbraking;d

325

439

374

kNm

Mhor;d

1046

1525

1451

kNm

Lever arm = Z/2

Hsc;udl x Z/2 = Msc;udl
Surcharge Line Load Hsc;F (Table 1)

Combined surcharge moment Msc;udl + Msc;F

Design surcharge moment Msc;combQ1

Braking action/m Hbraking;d (Table 1)
Lever arm for braking (Z-Y) = La;b = 8 - 1.5
Braking moment Mbraking;d = Hbraking;d x La;b
MOMENT DUE TO HORIZONTAL
ACTIONS,
Mhor;d = Map;d + Msc;d + Mbraking;d

Table 4. Moments about the underside of the base due to horizontal actions

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton10

Moments about the back of the heel

Width of heel Bheel

SLS

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

Bheel

6.25

6.25

6.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

La;deck

6.00

6.00

6.00

VDL;sup;d

158

200

158

kN/m

Deck Moment VDL;sup;d La;deck = Mdeck;d

Mdeck;d

948

1202

948

kNm

Traffic Load Vtraffic;d (Table 3)

Vtraffic;d

75.0

101

86.3

kN/m

Traffic Moment Vtraffic;d La;deck = Mtraffic;d

Mtraffic;d

450

608

518

kN/m

Weight of backfill Vbf;d (Table 2)

Vbf;d

900

1215

900

kNm

Backfill moment Vbf;d Bheel/2 = Mbf;d

Mbf;d

2813

3797

2813

kN/m

Total Moment about heel due to vertical

actions Mvert;d = Mdeck;d + Mtraffic;d + Mbf;d

Mvert;d

4211

5607

4278

kNm

Moment about base due to horizontal

Actions (Table 4)

Mhor;d

1046

1525

1451

kNm

Total design moment about heel

Mvert;d+ Mhor;d = Mheel;d

Mheel;d

5257

7131

5729

kNm

Vd

1133

1517

1144

kN/m

eheel

4.64

4.70

5.01

Total length B2 required for middle third at

SLS = 1.5 eheel (see PD 6694-1 5.2.2)

B2

6.96

Total length B3 for middle two thirds at ULS

= 1.2 eheel (see BS EN 1997-1 6.5.4)

B3

Distance of deck reactions

behind front of wall X
La;deck = Bheel - X
Superior weight of deck VDL;sup;d (Table 3)

Total vertical load Vd (Table 3)

Line of action in front of heel eheel
= Mheel / V

5.64

6.01

Table 5. Moments about the back of the heel (Position P on Figure 1)

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton11

Bearing Resistance undrained foundation

Geometry of foundation (m)
Final B (found iteratively)
Heel length Bheel (Table 2)
Transverse width of foundation L
Inclination
Partial factors
F applied to
M applied to tan
M applied to cu
M applied to c
Properties of foundation material
Weight density d (including G)
Angle of shearing resistance d
Cohesion intercept cd
Undrained shear strength cu;d
Applied action
Horizontal actions Hd (Table 1)
Vertical action Vd (Table 3)
Moment about P = Mheel;d (Table 4)
Mheel;d/V = eheel
Eccentricity about centre line e = eheel - B/2
Overburden pressure
Effective foundation dimensions (m)
Effective foundation breadth B = B-2e
Effective area for 1m strip design A = B
Effective transverse width L = L
Undrained bearing resistance
(Annex D to BS EN 1997-1 D.3)
Bearing parameters for undrained
foundations
bc = 1-2/(+2)
sc = 1+0.2(B/L)
ic = {1+(1-Hd/Acu;d)}
R/A = (+2)cu;dbc sc ic + qd
Vd /A
Ratio R/V
Settlement check
1/3(R/A) at SLS characteristic
Max toe pressure (1+6e/B)Vd / B

SLS

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

m
m
m

Bheel
L

8.60
6.25
12.0
0o

8.60
6.25
12.0
0o

8.60
6.25
12.0
0o

cu
c

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.25
1.40
1.00

d
d
cd

18.0
27.0
0
100.0

17.1
27.0
0
100.0

18.0
22.2
0
71.4

kN/m3

Mheel;d
eheel
e
qd

254
1133
5257
4.64
0.34
12.0

386
1517
7131
4.70
0.40
12.0

365
1144
5729
5.01
0.71
12.0

kN/m
kN/m
kNm/m
m
m
kN/m2

B
A
L

7.92
7.92
12.0

7.80
7.80
12.0

7.19
7.19
12.0

m
m2
m

bc
sc
ic
R/A
Vd /A
R / Vd

1.00
1.13
0.91
543
143
3.79

1.00
1.13
0.86
509
195
2.62

1.00
1.12
0.77
328
159
2.06

181

Not critical
(see Table 7)

cu;d
Hd
Vd

163

Table 6. Bearing Resistance undrained foundation

kN/m2

kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton12

Bearing Resistance drained foundation

Effective foundation dimensions
B from Table 6
L from Table 6
A per metre width from Table 6
Other geometry, partial factors, foundation
properties and actions are as Table 6
Bearing parameters for drained
foundations
Nq = etandtan2 (45+d /2)
Nc = (Nq-1)cot d
N = 2 (Nq-1) tan , where /2 (rough
base)
bc = bq (1-bq)/Nc tan d
bq = b = (1 - tan d)
sq = 1 + (B / L) sin d, for a rectangular
shape
s = 1 0.3 (B/L), for a rectangular shape;
sc = (sq Nq 1)/(Nq 1) for rectangular,
square or circular shape
m = (2+B/L)/(1+B/L)
iq = [1 H/(V + Acdcot d)]m
ic = iq (1 iq)/Nc tan d
i = [1 H/(V + Acdcot d)]m+1
R/A = (Equation from BS EN 1997-1 D.4)
cd Nc bc sc ic
qd Nq bq sq iq
0.5 d B N b s i
R/A = sum of above
Vd /A
Ratio R/V
Resistance to limit settlement at SLS
1/3 (R/A) at SLS characteristic
Max toe pressure (1+6e/B) Vd/B

SLS

STR/GEO
Comb. Comb.
1
2

B
L
A

7.92
12.0
7.92

7.80
12.0
7.80

7.19
12.0
7.19

Nq
Nc

13.2
23.9

13.2
23.9

7.96
17.1

N
bc
bq , b

12.4
1.00
1.00

12.4
1.00
1.00

5.68
1.00
1.00

sq
s

1.30
0.80

1.29
0.81

1.23
0.82

sc
m
iq
ic
i

1.32
1.60
0.67
0.64
0.52

1.32
1.61
0.62
0.59
0.47

1.26
1.63
0.54
0.47
0.36

R/A
Vd /A
R / Vd

0.00
137
367
504
143
3.52

0.00
128
311
439
195
2.25

0.00
62.7
110
172
159
1.08

168
163

Limits
satisfied

Table 7. Bearing Resistance drained foundation

m
m
m2

kN/m2
kN/m

kN/m2
kN/m2

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton13

Final Design
After the preliminary design has been completed a final design should be carried out as given
below:
1. Select the final dimensions based on the preliminary values: Bheel = 6.25m and B = 8.6m.
As the weight on the toe has not been included in the preliminary design, Bheel has been
"rounded down" and the overall length (B) may need to be "rounded up".
2. The final selected base slab dimensions should be verified using the correct concrete
densities, the loads on the toe and other relevant combinations of actions.
Details of the final design calculations are not included in this paper.

Conclusions
It is difficult to generalise about which combination of actions or which limit states are critical
on the basis of calculations for a single bridge because the critical combination is often
determined by the ratio of the bridge span to the abutment height or the ratio of traffic action
to the soil actions. It is however clear that horizontal earth pressures are generally critical for
STR/GEO Combination 1 regardless of the bridge proportions because G for soil is higher
than Ka;d /Ka;k for most realistic values of '. Also, for undrained sliding resistance
Combination 2 is always likely to be critical because M on cu is higher than Ka;d /Ka;k for all
realistic values of ', and it is also higher than Q on surcharge braking and acceleration.
For drained sliding resistance, in the calculations presented in this paper, Combination 2 was
more critical than Combination 1, primarily because the effects of G on the weight of soil
were favourable for sliding resistance and unfavourable for horizontal pressure and therefore,
to some extent, cancelled each other out in Combination 1. It was however apparent from the
calculations that Combination 1 could be critical for sliding for low abutments supporting
long spans where braking and acceleration actions were large and earth pressures were small.
For bearing pressure, Combination 2 was found to be significantly more critical than
Combination 1 for both drained and undrained foundations and as M effects tend to
predominate in bearing resistance calculations it seems probable that Combination 2 will be
critical for bearing resistance in most typical abutments and retaining walls. It was also
apparent from supporting calculations that the limitation on toe pressure at SLS is quite severe
and that in many cases where it is required to be applied, it will dictate the length of the base.
Additional explicit settlement calculations may therefore result in shorter base lengths being
required.
Overturning was not found to be an issue for the abutment illustrated in this paper and
although it needs to be verified, it appears that it is unlikely to affect the proportions of typical
gravity abutments as bearing failure under the toe would normally precede overturning.

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton14

References
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]

PD 6694-1 Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to

BS EN 1997-1: 2004, BSi, London, UK
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode - Basis of structural design Incorporating
corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010, BSi, London, UK
BS EN 1991-2:2003 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on
bridges, Incorporating Corrigenda December 2004 and February 2010, BSi, London,
UK
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1: General rules,
Incorporating corrigendum February 2009, BSi, London, UK
NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 UK National Annex for Eurocode Basis of
structural design, Incorporating National Amendment No.1, BSi, London, UK
NA to BS EN 1991-2:2003 UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, Incorporating Corrigendum No. 1, BSi, London, UK