The

© All Rights Reserved

0 tayangan

The

© All Rights Reserved

- Granular Layers in Flexible Pavements
- eth-32190-02 (Bjerrum).pdf
- In-Situ Test Calibrations for Evaluating Soil Parameters
- L2004_02.pdf
- Berm Stability
- Timber 04
- s320ln Scaler
- 7. Correlation between Durability and Geotechnical Properties of Compacted Shales.pdf
- Shear Friction Milestones
- CE_2015-1
- Shear Strength of Soils (6)
- Brochure - SDLG 956F Wheel Loader
- 2014_Pullout resistance of granular anchors in clay for undrianed condition_Soils and Foundations.pdf
- Manual for Supervision
- Chp04.pdf
- ACEG220 Lecture 6 Lateral Earth Pressure
- 13_2904
- Sparycon LP
- cgj-2015-0212
- G1 Group 1C

Anda di halaman 1dari 15

net/publication/304624023

DOI: 10.1680/bdte.41509.481

CITATIONS READS

0 1,011

4 authors, including:

University of Bristol 26 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

8 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

All content following this page was uploaded by John Bennetts on 30 June 2016.

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

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.

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 50 kN/m

Weight of concrete deck 72 kN/m

Weight of surfacing 36 kN/m

Maximum vertical traffic reaction Vtraffic 100 kN/m

Uplift due to traffic on adjacent span Utraffic 30 kN/m

Braking and acceleration action Hbraking 50 kN/m

UDL surcharge (from PD 6694-1 Table 5) h 20Ka kN/m²

Line load surcharge (from PD 6694-1 Table 5) F 2 x 330 Ka kN/lane

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

Soil parameters:

Granular backfill

Weight density γbf 18 kN/m²

Angle of shearing resistance 'bf 35

Clay foundations

Weight density 18 kN/m²

Undrained shear strength cu 100 kN/m²

Angle of shearing resistance ' 27

Critical state angle of shearing resistance 'cv 23

Overburden pressure (q) = γbf x Zq q 12 kN/m²

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.

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

Y= 1.5

X=0.25

The traffic on the third Z

notional lane is subject to

a 0.5 lane factor so that the

effective number of lanes Nlane

used in the surcharge Zq

calculation is 2.5 (see UK

National Annex to BS EN 1991- P

2:2003, NA 2.34.2)

Bheel

B

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 ψ 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

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.

(a) The total horizontal action on the wall (H) due to active earth pressure, traffic

surcharge (factored by ψ1) 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 (γbfZ). (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

(γbf)).

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

BheelγbfZ. The required value of Bheel therefore equalled (H-Rvx)/(γbfZtan'cv) and this

equals (H-Rvx)/(μγbfZ) 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

STR/GEO

Horizontal actions SLS Comb. Comb.

1 2

Partial factor on soil weight G;sup 1.00 1.35 1.00

'bf;k = 35; Partial factor M on tan('bf;k) M 1.00 1.00 1.25

tan-1(tan('bf;k)/M) = 'bf;d 'bf;d 35.0 35.0 29.3

(1-sin'bf;d)/(1+sinbf;d) Ka 0.27 0.27 0.34

Model factor Sd:K Sd:K 1.00 1.20 1.20

bf;dKaSd;KZ²/2 = Hap;d Hap;d 156 253 237 kN/m

= (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

= 2 x 330Ka x 2.5/12 = Hsc;F

Hsc;F 37.3 37.3 47.2 kN/m

Combined surcharge/m Hsc;udl + Hsc;F =

Hsc;comb Hsc;comb 64.4 64.4 81.6 kN/m

Partial factor on surcharge γQ γQ 1.00 1.35 1.15

1 = 0.75 for surcharge in traffic group grp2 1 0.75 0.75 0.75

Design surcharge = Hsc;d = Hsc;comb.ψ.γQ Hsc;d 48.3 65.2 70.4 kN/m

Characteristic braking action Hbraking;k Hbraking;k 50.0 50.0 50.0 kN/m

Partial factor on braking Q Q 1.00 1.35 1.15

Braking action /m Hbraking:d= Hbraking;k Q Hbraking;d 50.0 67.5 57.5 kN/m

ACTION Hd = Hap;d + Hsc;d + Hbraking;d Hd 254 386 365 kN/m

Table 1. Horizontal actions

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

STR/GEO

Minimum vertical actions and sliding

SLS Comb. Comb.

resistance

1 2

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

Inferior weight of deck VDL;inf;d 158 150 158 kN/m

Uplift from traffic Uk 30.0 30.0 30.0 kN/m

Superior partial factor on uplift Q;sup 1.00 1.35 1.15

group grp2 1 0.75 0.75 0.75

traffic Vx;d = VDL;inf;d – Ud Vx;d 136 120 132 kN/m

'cv;k = 23; Partial factor M on tan('cv;k) M 1.00 1.00 1.25

Coefficient of friction tan('cv;k)/M = d d 0.42 0.42 0.34

Sliding resistance due to Vx d.Vx;d = Rvx;d Rvx;d 57.5 50.8 44.9 kN/m

Horizontal action from Table 1, Hd 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 b;df 18.0 24.3 18.0 kN/m3

Frictional shear stress due to backfill: [dbf;d

Z] 61.1 82.5 48.9 kN/m2

Rounded down, see Methodology para. (4) Bheel 6.25 6.25 6.25 m

cu;k = 100; Partial factor M on cu;k cu 1 1 1.4

Undrained shear strength cu:d = cu;k /cu cu:d 100.0 100.0 71.4 kN/m2

Table 2. Minimum vertical actions and sliding resistance

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

STR/GEO

Maximum vertical actions SLS Comb. Comb.

1 2

Selected value of Bheel (Table 2) Bheel 6.25 6.25 6.25 m

Partial factor on steelwork G;sup G;sup 1.00 1.20 1.00

Weight of steelwork = 50G;sup 50.0 60.0 50.0 kN/m3

Partial factor on concrete G;sup G;sup 1.00 1.35 1.00

Weight of concrete = 72G;sup 72.0 97.2 72.0 kN/m3

Partial factor on surfacing G;sup G;sup 1.00 1.20 1.00

Weight of surfacing = 36G;sup 36.0 43.2 36.0 kN/m3

Superior weight of deck/m VDL;sup;d VDL;sup;d 158 200 158 kN/m

Vtraffic;k Vtraffic;k 100.0 100.0 100.0 kN/m

Partial factor on traffic Q Q 1.00 1.35 1.15

group grp2 1 0.75 0.75 0.75

Vtraffic;d =Vtraffic;k Q 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

Vbf;d = bf;d Z Bheel Vbf;d 900 1215 900 kN/m

Vmax;d = VDL;sup;d + Vtraffic;d+ Vbf;d Vmax;d 1133 1517 1144 kN/m

Table 3. Maximum vertical actions

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

STR/GEO

Moments about the underside of the base

SLS Comb. Comb.

due to horizontal actions

1 2

Active Pressure action Hap;d including Sd;K

(Table 1) Hap;d 156 253 237 kN/m

Lever arm = Z/3 2.67 2.67 2.67 m

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

Lever arm = Z/2 4.00 4.00 4.00 m

Hsc;udl x Z/2 = Msc;udl Msc;udl 108 108 137 kNm

Surcharge Line Load Hsc;F (Table 1) Hsc;F 37.3 37.3 47.2 kN/m

Lever arm = Z Z 8.00 8.00 8.00 m

Hsc;F Z = Msc;F Msc;F 298 298 378 kNm

Combined surcharge moment Msc;udl + Msc;F Msc;comb 406 406 515 kNm

Q for surcharge Q 1.00 1.35 1.15

1 = 0.75 for surcharge in traffic group grp2 1 0.75 0.75 0.75

Design surcharge moment Msc;combQ1 Msc;d 305 412 444 kNm

Braking action/m Hbraking;d (Table 1) Hbraking;d 50.0 67.5 57.5 kN/m

Lever arm for braking (Z-Y) = La;b = 8 - 1.5 La;b 6.50 6.50 6.50 m

Braking moment Mbraking;d = Hbraking;d x La;b Mbraking;d 325 439 374 kNm

ACTIONS,

Mhor;d = Map;d + Msc;d + Mbraking;d Mhor;d 1046 1525 1451 kNm

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

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton10

STR/GEO

Moments about the back of the heel SLS Comb. Comb.

1 2

behind front of wall X X 0.25 0.25 0.25 m

La;deck = Bheel - X La;deck 6.00 6.00 6.00 m

Superior weight of deck VDL;sup;d (Table 3) 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

actions Mvert;d = Mdeck;d + Mtraffic;d + Mbf;d Mvert;d 4211 5607 4278 kNm

Actions (Table 4) Mhor;d 1046 1525 1451 kNm

Mvert;d+ Mhor;d = Mheel;d Mheel;d 5257 7131 5729 kNm

Total vertical load Vd (Table 3) Vd 1133 1517 1144 kN/m

= Mheel / V eheel 4.64 4.70 5.01 m

SLS = 1.5 eheel (see PD 6694-1 5.2.2) B2 6.96 m

= 1.2 eheel (see BS EN 1997-1 6.5.4) B3 5.64 6.01 m

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

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton11

STR/GEO

Bearing Resistance – undrained foundation SLS Comb. Comb.

1 2

Geometry of foundation (m)

Final B (found iteratively) B 8.60 8.60 8.60 m

Heel length Bheel (Table 2) Bheel 6.25 6.25 6.25 m

Transverse width of foundation L L 12.0 12.0 12.0 m

Inclination 0o 0o 0o

Partial factors

F applied to G 1.00 0.95 1.00

M applied to tan 1.00 1.00 1.25

M applied to cu cu 1.00 1.00 1.40

M applied to c c 1.00 1.00 1.00

Properties of foundation material

Weight density d (including G) d 18.0 17.1 18.0 kN/m3

Angle of shearing resistance d d 27.0 27.0 22.2

Cohesion intercept cd cd 0 0 0

Undrained shear strength cu;d cu;d 100.0 100.0 71.4 kN/m2

Applied action

Horizontal actions Hd (Table 1) Hd 254 386 365 kN/m

Vertical action Vd (Table 3) Vd 1133 1517 1144 kN/m

Moment about P = Mheel;d (Table 4) Mheel;d 5257 7131 5729 kNm/m

Mheel;d/V = eheel eheel 4.64 4.70 5.01 m

Eccentricity about centre line e = eheel - B/2 e 0.34 0.40 0.71 m

Overburden pressure qd 12.0 12.0 12.0 kN/m2

Effective foundation dimensions (m)

Effective foundation breadth B = B-2e B 7.92 7.80 7.19 m

Effective area for 1m strip design A = B A 7.92 7.80 7.19 m2

Effective transverse width L = L L 12.0 12.0 12.0 m

Undrained bearing resistance

(Annex D to BS EN 1997-1 D.3)

Bearing parameters for undrained

foundations

bc = 1-2/(+2) bc 1.00 1.00 1.00

sc = 1+0.2(B/L) sc 1.13 1.13 1.12

ic = ½{1+(1-Hd/Acu;d)} ic 0.91 0.86 0.77

R/A = (+2)cu;dbc sc ic + qd R/A 543 509 328 kN/m2

Vd /A Vd /A 143 195 159 kN/m2

Ratio R/V R / Vd 3.79 2.62 2.06

Settlement check

Not critical kN/m2

1/3(R/A) at SLS characteristic 181

(see Table 7)

Max toe pressure (1+6e/B)Vd / B 163 kN/m2

Table 6. Bearing Resistance – undrained foundation

T Christie, M Glendinning, J Bennetts, S Denton12

STR/GEO

Bearing Resistance – drained foundation SLS Comb. Comb.

1 2

Effective foundation dimensions

B from Table 6 B 7.92 7.80 7.19 m

L from Table 6 L 12.0 12.0 12.0 m

A per metre width from Table 6 A 7.92 7.80 7.19 m2

Other geometry, partial factors, foundation

properties and actions are as Table 6

Bearing parameters for drained

foundations

Nq = etandtan2 (45+d /2) Nq 13.2 13.2 7.96

Nc = (Nq-1)cot d Nc 23.9 23.9 17.1

N = 2 (Nq-1) tan , where /2 (rough

base) N 12.4 12.4 5.68

bc = bq – (1-bq)/Nc tan d bc 1.00 1.00 1.00

bq = b = (1 - tan d) bq , b 1.00 1.00 1.00

sq = 1 + (B / L) sin d, for a rectangular

shape sq 1.30 1.29 1.23

s = 1 – 0.3 (B/L), for a rectangular shape; s 0.80 0.81 0.82

sc = (sq Nq – 1)/(Nq – 1) for rectangular,

square or circular shape sc 1.32 1.32 1.26

m = (2+B/L)/(1+B/L) m 1.60 1.61 1.63

iq = [1 – H/(V + Acdcot d)]m iq 0.67 0.62 0.54

ic = iq – (1 – iq)/Nc tan d ic 0.64 0.59 0.47

i = [1 – H/(V + Acdcot d)]m+1 i 0.52 0.47 0.36

R/A = (Equation from BS EN 1997-1 D.4)

cd Nc bc sc ic 0.00 0.00 0.00

qd Nq bq sq iq 137 128 62.7

0.5 d B N b s i 367 311 110

R/A = sum of above R/A 504 439 172 kN/m2

Vd /A Vd /A 143 195 159 kN/m

Ratio R/V R / Vd 3.52 2.25 1.08

Resistance to limit settlement at SLS

1/3 (R/A) at SLS characteristic 168 Limits kN/m2

Max toe pressure (1+6e/B) Vd/B 163 satisfied kN/m2

Table 7. Bearing Resistance – drained foundation

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

BS EN 1997-1: 2004, BSi, London, UK

[2] BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode - Basis of structural design Incorporating

corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010, BSi, London, UK

[3] 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

[4] BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules,

Incorporating corrigendum February 2009, BSi, London, UK

[5] 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

[6] 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

- Granular Layers in Flexible PavementsDiunggah olehbloomdido
- eth-32190-02 (Bjerrum).pdfDiunggah olehNathan Vincent
- In-Situ Test Calibrations for Evaluating Soil ParametersDiunggah olehJesus Gonzalez
- L2004_02.pdfDiunggah olehRohana Mamat
- Berm StabilityDiunggah olehkrivco
- Timber 04Diunggah olehEdison Malahito
- s320ln ScalerDiunggah olehEliasd
- 7. Correlation between Durability and Geotechnical Properties of Compacted Shales.pdfDiunggah olehmasamune87
- Shear Friction MilestonesDiunggah olehPremasiri Karunarathna
- CE_2015-1Diunggah olehYazer Arafath
- Shear Strength of Soils (6)Diunggah olehNatasha Aleia
- Brochure - SDLG 956F Wheel LoaderDiunggah olehErvin Mesa
- 2014_Pullout resistance of granular anchors in clay for undrianed condition_Soils and Foundations.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Manual for SupervisionDiunggah olehbolinag
- Chp04.pdfDiunggah olehR.a. Niar Nauri Ningsih
- ACEG220 Lecture 6 Lateral Earth PressureDiunggah olehYasser Alghrafy
- 13_2904Diunggah olehOmar Mokhtar
- Sparycon LPDiunggah olehluisparedes
- cgj-2015-0212Diunggah olehCristina De Hollanda Cavalcanti Tsuha
- G1 Group 1CDiunggah olehNH Syzln
- Tutorial 2Diunggah olehWHfamily
- Direct Shear TestingDiunggah olehIlham
- materials-10-00782Diunggah olehujosec6138
- Stability AnalysisDiunggah olehyaseen90aziz
- Magnetorheological Mr Brake SystemDiunggah olehmailsk123
- 13_2904.pdfDiunggah olehOmar Mokhtar
- 4627Diunggah olehtallat0316557
- ATTEWELL, P. B.; FARMER, I. W. - Ground Disturbance Caused by Shield Tunneling in a Stiff, Overconsolidated Clay.pdfDiunggah olehRicardo10985
- 864017Diunggah olehHayro Copacalle
- 1998-03_Pages_38-41.pdfDiunggah olehMu Hardi

- Foundation DesignDiunggah olehHafiz Kamal
- bs 7818 1995Diunggah olehAchilleas21
- Helical-Anchor-Inc-Engineering-Manual-Rev-02.pdfDiunggah olehismael.lorandi623
- HIGH MAST DESIGN CALCULATION.pdfDiunggah olehSandip Sengupta
- Masonry Support Systems and LintelsDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- Construction of Buildings Volume 5Diunggah olehmihai80ct
- ETAG001-AnnexC Amendment 06-11-24Diunggah olehSerban Radu
- Influence Lines for BeamsDiunggah olehAdil Javed Chaudhary
- Retaining Wall DesignDiunggah olehBatepola Arach
- SEISMIC DESIGNDiunggah olehRamilArtates
- Lecture 7 Detailing PHG A1 Rev 10 2 Nov 16 Print (1)Diunggah olehTim Chong
- A Review of the Present and Future Utilisation of FRP Composites in the Civil Infrastructure With Reference to Their Important in-service PropertiesDiunggah olehalbertofgv
- Design of Timber Structures 3 2016Diunggah olehGregor
- Plinth Design for RRSDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- ABG Green Retaining Wall GuideDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- ABG_Green_Retaining_Wall_Guide.pdfDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- BCSA_P50-09 Typical Welding Procedure Specifications for Structural Steelwork_Welding BookDiunggah olehDifa Liu
- Sika AnchorFix 1 PDS[1]Diunggah olehAchilleas21
- Foundations High MastDiunggah olehPriya Ranjan Singh
- CDM 2015 Simplified - What You Need to KnowDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- cdm 2015Diunggah olehAchilleas21
- hsg47 - avoiding danger from underground services.pdfDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- Inspection of Highway StructuresDiunggah olehmyspams
- Engineer's & Architects GuideDiunggah olehAchilleas21
- Archie Seminar 2007Diunggah olehAchilleas21
- Shear Behavior of Steel I-Beams Strengthened With CFRP StripsDiunggah olehInfogain publication
- Grillage AnalysisDiunggah olehSenthil Kasilingam

- Draft Seniority List of Tax Assistants as on 01.08.14Diunggah olehRoxanne Young
- Spir Package Unit - Buhasa StatcomDiunggah olehnaveenks355
- Cylindrical Tank TutorialDiunggah olehLudi Pas
- Review on 20 HI Cold Rolling Mill Rolls and SpallingDiunggah olehIJRASETPublications
- Annexure IV B CaseStudy1Diunggah olehMohammed Abdo
- v4nsul Microswitch SpecsDiunggah olehadeiv20027197
- Symmetry Boundary ConditionsDiunggah olehJohn Chiv
- Filipino PhysicistDiunggah olehJeredPanalagaoAdal
- Important Equation in PhysicsDiunggah oleha7med00
- DSPDiunggah olehShawon Mohammad Shahryiar
- Applications of Electrolysis in Chemical Industry.Diunggah olehRichard.nl
- Three-phase Induction Motors (2)Diunggah olehDimitriu Carmen
- Neuroimaging techniquesDiunggah olehKarthik Pandia
- solutions4.pdfDiunggah olehJuan Lombardero
- ANSYS Mapped MeshingDiunggah olehJefri Bale
- areapub.pdfDiunggah olehhub23
- PHYSIC STPM Trial Sem 1 2013Diunggah olehZuraini Arshad
- Gamsat Notes FinalDiunggah olehBrick
- Reciprocating PumpDiunggah olehAnkush Jain
- Heat Pump LabDiunggah olehJeremy Tay
- UltraCW Service ManualDiunggah olehBooBleGooM
- MagnetismDiunggah olehVarun Jain
- 53Diunggah olehSiti Aishah
- Friction and wear processes – Thermodynamic approachDiunggah olehavencl
- Ether and Mater by Carl Krafft.pdfDiunggah olehPaul
- Lecture Notes 5Diunggah olehHarshaVardhanK
- Utse- Metathesis and SyllabusDiunggah olehutpanna
- Investigation of Mechanical Behavior of Water Hyacinth Fiber / Polyester with Aluminium Powder CompositesDiunggah olehAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Berkeley (Auth.), Douglas M. Jesseph (Eds.)-De Motu and the Analyst_ a Modern Edition, With Introductions and Commentary-Springer Netherlands (1992)Diunggah olehArcana
- m 307 Laplace Fact SheetDiunggah olehstephannie montoya