Design of Integral Bridges on M50, Ireland

Summary

This paper discusses the soil-structure analysis methods used in the design, the details employed to
minimise the adverse effects of soil pressures and the integral connection details used to eliminate
bearings in the integral bridges on the M50 in Ireland. Since the design methodology adopted for all
the integral bridges is quite similar, only the River Tolka bridges are discussed in detail.

Introduction

The M50 is a two lane orbital motorway which forms a 'C' Ring to the west of Dublin, Ireland. In terms
of the road network in Ireland, the M50 is one of the most critical elements of the countrys
infrastructure. To relieve congestion in and around Dublin, the NRA (National Roads Authority) of
Ireland proposed upgrading the M50 to a three lane motorway along with major interchange
improvements. The scheme design included seven interchange upgrades, with major upgrades to full
free flow at the M1, N2 and N3 interchanges.

In total there are 15 integral bridges on the M50 six each on N2 and N3 interchange, one on the M1
and two on the S1 interchange. Of these, seven are single span (M1 and N2 interchange), four are
two span continuous (N3 interchange), two are three span continuous over River Tolka (Fig 1) and
two are four span continuous (S1 interchange) bridges.

Fig. 1 Elevation of River Tolka Bridge, S02-N3

The superstructures of these bridges consist of precast pre-tensioned concrete U or W beams with in
situ concrete deck. Permanent formwork is provided between adjacent beams. The bridges are fully
integral at end and intermediate supports, which eliminates the need for bearings and expansion
joints.

End supports comprise concrete abutments (M1 interchange bridge), bankseats (S1 interchange and
River Tolka bridges) and discrete concrete columns on concrete pads (N2 and N3 interchange
bridges). The columns at these abutments are isolated from the soil to ensure adequate flexibility.
Intermediate supports are either reinforced concrete circular columns (N3 interchange and River
Tolka bridges) or leaf piers (S1 interchange bridges). The foundations are either reinforced concrete
circular piles or pad footings.

Although the superstructure designs were standardised to expedite construction, the substructures
had some unique features to account for the specific site conditions. For example, for River Tolka
bridges, the end supports are bankseats supported on rock fill, whereas the intermediate supports are
circular columns individually resting on single piles without a common pile cap.

Keywords: Integral connection; soil-structure analysis; bankseats; piles; foundation pads; isolated
columns; beam-and-slab superstructure.

River Tolka Bridges

The N3 interchange is probably the busiest and the most congested interchange on the M50. The
design upgraded it from its original arrangement to a full free flow interchange. The interchange is
grade separated with the M50 mainline passing underneath.

The River Tolka crosses underneath the motorway within the northern section of the N3 interchange.
It is one of Dublin's three main rivers, flowing from County Meath to Fingal, within the old County
Dublin, and through the north of Dublin city and is known for occasional but severe flooding. The river
and banks, particularly west of the M50, were identified as areas of environmental significance. In-
stream works had to be minimised and method statements approved by the Eastern Regional
Fisheries Board (ERFB) in advance of undertaking any works in the vicinity of the river. The river had
previously been canalised through the interchange and could easily be bridged without affecting the
canalisation.

Two new road bridges crossing River Tolka were proposed; the S02-N3 for carrying traffic over the
river from N3 sliplane to the M50 northbound and the S08-N3 for carrying traffic over the river from the
M50 southbound traffic to the N3 westbound. The bridges had to be built adjacent to the existing river
bridges and for aesthetic reasons were similar to the existing bridge structures. The proposed
intermediate and end supports for these bridges had to be in line with the intermediate and end
supports of the adjacent existing bridges over the river.

Both S02-N3 and S08-N3 are three-span continuous bridges with the superstructure comprising
precast pre-tensioned U beams with a reinforced concrete deck slab (Fig 2). 75 mm thick precast
concrete permanent formwork is provided between the beams and 25 mm thick Glass Reinforced
Concrete (GRC) permanent formwork is provided across the tops of the beams.

Fig. 2 Section of River Tolka Bridge, S02-N3

S02-N3 has a nominal skew of 4.70 degrees, with a central span (square) of 21.164 m and end spans
(square) of 11.738 m. S08-N3 has a skew of 17.51 degrees, with a central span (measure along the
centreline of beams) of 22.081 m, north end span of 12.806 m and north end span of 13.841 m. S08-
N3 has a varying curvature in both vertical and horizontal direction (circular plus transition).

In order to expedite the construction, by eliminating the need for falsework, the deck cantilever in S02-
N3 was provided in the form of precast concrete elements. These were connected to the main deck
by means of steel sections RHS 100 x 60 x 8 at 1500 mm intervals, which in turn were supported by
threaded bars cast into the outer precast U5 beams.

Due to the variable length of the deck cantilever and the curvature of S08-N3 the cantilevers were
cast in situ for this structure. Due to the variable curvature, slightly longer spans and wider beam
spacing compared to S02-N3, the deck slab thickness was correspondingly greater. Precast U7
beams as opposed to U5 beams were provided on this bridge.

The two intermediate supports comprise four circular 1000 mm diameter reinforced concrete columns,
each supported on 1200 x 1200 x 1500 mm thick reinforced concrete pile cap (Fig 3). Each pile cap in
turn rests on a 900 mm diameter reinforced concrete pile, which is embedded 3000 mm into
weathered limestone strata. The columns are joined together at the top by a reinforced concrete pier
cross-head.

Fig. 3 Intermediate support pier column and foundations

The intermediate supports are made integral with the superstructure by means of an in situ concrete
diaphragm connected to the cross-head and extending into the precast beams. (Fig 4).

Fig. 4 Concrete diaphragm connection between pier cross-head and precast beams

A reinforced soil retaining wall, comprising precast fascia panels with a pattern finish and a precast
coping at the top was required to be constructed in front of the columns in order to preserve the
footpath adjacent to the river. In addition, the wall would safeguard the embankment from erosion
during times of flooding allowing bankseats to be used instead of pile foundations, thus saving on
costs. On the other hand, due to the soil being retained by the wall, high soil pressures were expected
on that part of the columns embedded in the embankment slope, just behind the wall. In order to
eliminate any interaction with the soil, the columns were sleeved through the wall using 1200 mm
diameter precast concrete rings as encasement.

The end supports comprise reinforced concrete bankseats with a 3m wide base. (Fig 5). Two layers of
2 mm thick HDPE geomembrane was laid on the 75 mm thick concrete blinding, which in turn was
underlain by Class 6N fill material. Care was taken to get a smooth finish on the blinding. Casting the
foundation concrete directly on the blinding would have resulted in a rough concrete interface which
would have developed high friction. This would have resulted in high stresses being generated in the
structure. Incorporation of the slip membrane ensured freedom for the bankseats to slide and
minimises the friction between the bankseat foundation.
Fig. 5 End support bankseat

Similar to the intermediate supports, the end supports were also made integral with the superstructure
by casting a concrete diaphragm insitu with the bankseat and precast beams, which are partially in-
filled with this concrete.

It was calculated that the maximum differential settlement between the abutments and the piers would
be 25 mm. The design incorporated this amount of differential settlement.

Method of Analysis

The piles beneath the pier columns were treated as individual piles and the flexibility/stiffness
matrices were determined for an individual pile at the centre on the underside of the individual pile
cap. This was a reasonable assumption since there was no continuous pile cap and therefore no pile
group effect to consider. This flexibility/stiffness matrix was obtained from a pile group analysis
programme, wherein unit loads and moments were input to generate translational and rotational
stiffness. From the generated flexibility/stiffness matrix, equivalent cantilever parameters of the pile
were determined, including depth of fixity, effective shear area and moment of inertia. The pile
foundations were modelled as equivalent cantilevers with fixed supports. The vertical capacity of piles
was compared with the applied loads and the shear force and bending moment diagrams were plotted
along the pile depth. The pile reinforcement was designed accordingly.

The reason for modelling piles as equivalent cantilevers rather than spring supports is because piles
cannot accurately be represented as simple springs since the moments applied to the pile cap will
produce both a rotation and a displacement. This displacement cannot be obtained with a simple
spring representation. Similarly, shears applied to the pile cap will produce both a displacement and a
rotation. To represent this behaviour, a flexibility (or stiffness) matrix is required. This can be done
through the use of an equivalent cantilever, where the displacements and rotations at the pile cap are
matched through the selection of suitable cantilever properties. The top of the equivalent cantilever
should match the position on the pile cap for which the real force-displacement relationships are to
be obtained. If necessary, any remaining height of pile cap can be represented by a rigid extension to
the cantilever.

For the pile design and derivation of flexibility/stiffness matrices, both short term and long term values
of modulus of elasticity (E) were used. A short term E value is used for the upper bound analysis. This
gives the worst case for forces/stresses in the piles since the arrangement is stiffer and, therefore,
attracts more loads. A long term E value is used for the lower bound analysis. This gives a more
flexible pile arrangement and reflects better long term behaviour. This gives the worst case for
forces/stresses in the superstructure, since in this case the foundations attract lesser loads.

The bankseats are also modelled as fixed supports at their base, by sub-dividing each into a number
of elements. The width of the bankseats was finalised as 3 m after conducting stability analysis using
a proprietary software package. The applied bearing pressures were then confirmed to be within the
allowable bearing capacity. The safety factors were checked against working loads, ultimate loads (ie
2,5 times the working loads) and since it is a high bankseat likely to slide, 5 times the dead load as
well. The bankseats are underlain by 6N fill material. The friction angle value of crushed rock that is
most commonly used as 6N material in Ireland is 42 degrees. This is much higher than the friction
angle value of a typical 6N fill material, which is around 35 degrees. The designs and stability
checks were, therefore, done based on upper and lower bound values of 42 and 35 degrees,
respectively.

The superstructure was modelled and analysed as 2D grillage using a proprietary software package
(Fig 6). The precast beams were modelled as longitudinal members and the deck slab as transverse
members. The structure was designed for HA loading and 45 units of HB. In addition, secondary
effects such as differential shrinkage and creep were considered. Only 50% of the shrinkage was
allowed for the deck design at supports. This is because creep and shrinkage take a long time to
reach their design limit. Shrinkage will generate sagging in the deck and it would, therefore, be unsafe
to consider full shrinkage at the supports. However, full shrinkage is considered for mid-span sagging.

Fig. 6 Idealised grillage model of River Tolka Bridge, S02-N3

The deck under self weight can be analysed as simply supported or fixed at each end for the addition
of the deck concrete. While treating it as fixed, the amount of prestressing in the beams is reduced
but a strict order of concreting extending over several days in order to clamp the ends of the beams is
required. The bridges on the M50 were analysed as simply supported for self weight. The decks were
concreted from their centres towards the diaphragms. In the case of the three-span bridges two
concrete pumps were used to ensure that there were no cold joints formed in the concreting process.
In some cases the diaphragms were concreted to the underside of the deck slab prior to casting the
deck. There is a small rotation of the beam ends within these sections of the diaphragms when the
slab is cast but it was resolved that the integral connection would be unaffected by this. Casting the
section of the diaphragm reduced the volume of concrete to be cast in the final operation and did not
affect the finished product

Analysis was carried out for both short term and long term E values of concrete in the superstructure.
These values were used in conjunction with the upper and lower bound E values of piles, as well as
the upper and lower bound values of fill material below bankseats, for overall analysis of the structure.

Conclusion

Integral bridges are recommended for increased durability and lower maintenance and have been
provided at a number of locations on the M50. In addition, the use of relative innovative designs, such
as providing concrete pad foundations for bankseats (instead of piles), providing individual piles and
pile caps for pier columns (instead of group piles with common pile caps) and encasing pier columns
beneath the embankment in sleeves (to reduce soil pressure), have ultimately allowed for more
economical design and faster construction of bridges on the M50.

References

[1] Design Manual of Roads and Bridges, BA 42/96 The Design of Integral Bridges.
[2] Design Manual of Roads and Bridges, BA 42/96 Backfilled Retaining Walls and Bridge
Abutments.
[3] CIRIA C543, Bridge Detailing Guide.
[4] Hambly E.C., Bridge Deck Behaviour.
[5] Nicholson B.A., Integral Abutments for Precast Beam Bridges.
[6] Clark L.A. and Sugie I., Serviceability Limit State Aspects of Continuous Bridges using Precast
Concrete Beams.
[7] Hendy C.R. and Chubb M.S., Atkins Technical Note No. 3 Modelling Pile Foundations by
Equivalent Cantilevers

SEI Data Block

Owner:
National Roads Authority

Contractor:
M50 D&C (FCC, Sacyr, Hegarty, Somague)

River Tolka Bridge, S02-N3

Steel (t): 105
3
Concrete (m ): 700
Prestressing Steel (t): 7
Estimated Cost (Euro million): 0.95
Service Date (expected): December, 2010