Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Analysis ofBridge Response Considering Water-soil-pile-structure Interaction

under a Scoured Condition

Cheng Lin 1, Caroline R. Bennett 2 , A.M.ASCE, Robert L. Parsons 3, M.ASCE, and Jie
Han 4 , M.ASCE

1Graduate Research Assistant, University of Kansas, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering
(CEAE) Dept., Lawrence, KS 66045; cheng@ku.edu
2Assistant Professor, University of Kansas, CEAE Dept., Lawrence, KS 66045 ; crb@ku.edu
3Associate Professor, University ofKansas, CEAE Dept., Lawrence, KS 66045; rparsons@ku.edu
4Associate Professor, University ofKansas, CEAE Dept., Lawrence, KS 66045 ; jiehan@ku.edu

ABSTRACT: Scour removes soil and reduces the capacity of apile foundation, and thus
may cause instability of a bridge. An analysis of bridge response under scoured
conditions requires consideration of water-soil-pile-structure interaction. However,
Iimited research has been done to integrate the analysis of water-soil-pile-structure
interaction for a bridge due to scour. In this study, an attempt was made to consider such
integration. Apile group was treated as an equivalent single pile, and the nonlinear
response between soil and the equivalent single pile was modeled using a p-y curve. The
influence of water flow was considered by applying stream pressure to the bridge piers
and the pile foundation at different scour depths. Interaction between the piles and
superstructure was analyzed by performing iterative caIculations of their respective
stiffuess matrices until convergence was obtained. Kansas Bridge 45 was selected as a
case study for evaluation of a typical scour-susceptible bridge under scoured conditions.
The results show that scour significantly increased lateral deflection of the pile head.
Considering pile cap had positive effects on the decrease of the lateral deflection of the
pile groups. The investigation was also made into the influence of boundary conditions
ofbridge abutment on the lateral bridge responses.

INTRODUCTION

Scour is removal or erosion of streambed materials around bridge foundations due to

flowing water, usually categorized into long-term bed degradation, contraction, and local
scour. Contraction scour occurs in a contracted part of the river caused by the presence
ofbridges or revetments. Local scour is attributed to the acceleration ofwater around the
pier or abutment. Rate of scour varies in different soils due to different soil resistance to
the erosion, exhibiting the highest in sand, the second in cIay, and the lowest in rock.
Much research has been done on the prediction of scour depths in different soils (for

73

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 74 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

example, Rachardson and Davis, 1995; Briaud et al., 1999). When the maximum scour
depth is predicted, the scour effeets can be considered in lhe bridge design o Many
countermeasures were developed to protect bridges ITom the damage of scour, i.e. riprap,
partially grouted riprap, articulating concrete block systems, gabion mattresses, grout-
filled mattresses, and geotextile sand eontainers (Lagasse et al. 2007).
Based on technical advisories and guidance ITom the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), new bridges should be designed to resist potential damage ITom scour events,
while regular inspection and evaluation of existing bridges is required to determine
whether an extreme event such as flood can result in damage (Lagasse et al. 2007).
However, evaluation ofbridge performance under scour is a eomplicated process because
it depends on interaction between water, soil, pi les, and the bridge superstructure which
eurrently was not fully understood. Scour erodes away soils in the vicinity of pile
foundations, thus changing the soil conditions and increasing the unsupported pi le length.
Such changes in pile foundations affeet behavior ofthe bridge superstructure. Therefore,
scour may significantly alter the consequences of force effects on struetures (AASHTO
2007).
During a flood, lateral response of a bridge is one of the most significant issues for
consideration. This study attempted to investigate the lateral response of a bridge
eonsidering water-soil-pile-superstructure interaction under scour. Water pressure due to
a 100-year flood was estimated and analytically applied to a bridge. Soil-pile foundation
interaetion was described using the p-y curve method. The superstructure of the bridge
was analyzed under lateral transient loads. lntegration ofthe soil-pile foundation analysis
and lhe superstructure analysis was then carried out at various scoured depths. Bridge 45
in Kansas in the United States was studied as an example to investigate the effects of
scour on lhe bridge response.

SOlL AND PILE INTERACTlON

The pile foundation in a bridge is often eomposed of a group of piles. A group effect
exists in pile groups having close spaeing (Iess than 6 times of pi le diameter) between
individual piles due to the overlap of soil resistance. Using a p-multiplier to reduce the
lateral soil resistance accounting for this group effect, Mokwa and Duncan (2000)
proposed the Group Equivalent Pile (GEP) method to analyze the behavior of a laterally
loaded pile group.
In the Group Equivalent Pile (GEP) approach (Mokwa and Duncan 2000), apile group
may be modeled as an equivalent single pile having the same properties as each
individual pile exeept for the moment of inertia. The moment of inertia is taken as being
equal to the sum of moments of inertia of all the individual piles. This equivalent single
pi le is then loaded with the total actual load. The group effect is considered by
modifying the p-y curve of each single pile by a p-multiplier to obtain the GEP p-y curve
as expressed in Eq. (1):

P=LP'!mi (1 )
j:::]

where pis the soil resistanee to pi les; Pi is the p-value for the /h single pile;fmi is the p-

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205 75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

multiplier for the /h single pile, depending on the position ofthe pile, the pi le spacing, the
soil type, and the installation method, as shown in Figure 1; and N is the number of piles
in the group.
When an embedded pile cap is included, the cap can be modeled by enlarging the top
portion of the GEP based on the actual dimensions of the cap. The p-y curve of the
embedded cap can be estimated using the hyperbolic load-deflection relationship. The
details ofthe p-y curve for the pile cap were reported by Mokwa and Duncan (2000) and
Lin et al. (2009).
The LPILE 5.0 Plus software was used with the GEP method in this study to analyze
the pile group although two other software packages, GROUPand FB-PIER, are al so
available for analysis of pile groups. As Mokwa and Duncan (2000) pointed out,
GROUP and FB-PIER have limitations when an extemally-generated pile cap p-y curve
is used.

Ratio of ele pile spacing to diameter of piles

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.95

~ 0.85
..: 0.75
.g¡
Q. A-Leading row
0.65
E B B-1 st trailing row
;:,
0.55
r¡: C-2 nd trailing row
a.. 0.45 C
D-3 rd and subsequent
0.35 D trailing row
0.25
0.15

FIG. 1. DesigD ehart for the p-multiplier (Mokwa aDd DUDean 2000)

INTEGRATION OF SUBSTRUCTURE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

Superstructure in this study refers to the structure aboye the pile foundations, including
bridge decks, girders, and piers. Substructure is Iimited to pile foundations. The analysis
of the bridge superstructure was first conducted at a fixed boundary condition between
the bridge pier and the pile foundation using software STAAD Pro. 2007. The boundary
condition was set with fixity because the stiffness provided by pile foundation is
relatively big; in addition, this initial support condition could be set easily and
consistently for different integrations at various scour depths instead of assuming specific
stiffness values. A study was conducted based on these two initial support conditions for
the bridge pier (i.e., fixity and assumed values of stiffness) and resulted in similar final
results when convergence was achieved. Reactions at the pier bases were obtained and
then used as loads applied to the pile foundation for analysis. The responses of the piJe

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 76 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

head under the applied loads were ca1culated. Stiffness ofthe pile head was computed by
dividing the loads by the corresponding displacements (i.e., spring supports to the
superstructure were assumed). When the base supports of the superstructure (the
stiffness from the pile analysis) were updated, new reactions from the superstructure were
ca1culated, which were subsequently assigned to the pile foundation as new loads. Based
on the aboye procedure, iterations were performed between the superstructure and the
substructure until the difference between displacements at the base of the superstructure
(i.e., the bottom of the pier) and at the top of the substructure (i.e., the pile head) was
insignificant (i.e., les s than 5% in this study), or the change óf two successive stiffness
values during the iteration was considerably small «5%).

CASESTUDY

Bridge 45 is situated in Jewell County, Kansas in the United States and carries State
Highway K 14 over a local creek. The five-span bridge was constructed in 1956 and has a
total length of 113 m. Four W33xl41 girders are used to support the bridge deck as
shown in Figure 2. Bridge 45 has eight circular tapered piers with diameters of 0.93 m at
the top and 1.39 m at the bottom, each supported by a group of eight HPIOx42 piles with
spaced at distances three times the width of a single.pile as shown in Figure 3.

112m
1-

Strearn
direction
~
-r '.M.ª
''', B
F, Pier
discretization
Upstrearn downstream
pier pier

FIG.2. Bridge K45 superstructure

This study considered two lateral loads applied on the bridge: wind loads and stream
loads. The self-weight of the superstructure was assigned as a vertical load. All load
factors within the load combinations used in this study were taken as 1.0. The stream
loads with debris at 100-year flood design were ca1culated and then applied to the

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205 77
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

superstructure. The elevation of the 100-year tlood design based on the bridge plan was
12.5 m aboye the base of piers, as depicted in Figure 2. The debris load and the wind
load were calculated according to AASHTO (2007), and only applied to piers in the
upstream row due to a relative smaIl distance of two piers in the transverse direction.
Therefore the responses of the piers in the upstream and downstream rows were different.
The tapered piers were divided into multiple sections as shown in Figure 2 to simplify the
structural analysis.

v v
/ / / ~ ~ / // Ground Une
¡;;-- I I i7 I I ~.I.ID J Scour
y' ~ 8.2 kN/m' Deplhs
Cu~35 kN/m' . m 3m investigated
Clay: --
5.33m K ~27MN/m'
e" ~O.OI
5m
- -
r- -

y' ~IOÜ¡¡m'
Sand: K ~ 34MN/m '
4.88m ~ ~33

y' ~IOkN/m '

r- -
Clay: C u ~70 kN/m'

D
1.52m K ~ I36MN/m ' , e,. ~O . OO7
HH '-v------'
D Group
_ H H Equivalenl Pile
F,
H H H

FIG. 3. Cross section ofthe pile foundation and the scour depths investigated

The basic information of the pile foundation and the scour depths analyzed are
presented in Figure 3. The pile length is 9.8m and the square pi le cap is 2.3m wide and
1.1 m thick. Each pile is embedded 0.3m into the pile cap. The top of the pile cap is at
the sarue elevation as the ground line for aIl the piers for simplicity. Three scour depths
were assumed for the purpose of investigating the lateral responses of the bridge
structure, while the vertical responses were ignored because axial soil resistance is not
able to be considered in LPILE 5.0 Plus. Three soil layers were encountered in this site.
Properties of the soils are surnmarized in Figure 3. Based on the GEP method, the
modified p.value was caIculated to be 5.5 times the p-value of a single pile using the plot
shown in Figure 1 and Eq. (1). The strearu loads were also taken into account for the pile
foundation when scour proceeded below the elevation ofthe top ofthe pile cap.
The pile foundation and the superstructure were assumed to be rigidly connected during
the iterative analyses. Consequently, the rotation was ignored and the rotational stiffness
was not examined during the iterations. Vertical displacement was assumed as zero, and

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 78 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

only lateral stiffness was computed during the iterations. However, the vertical load was
considered during the calculations because the vertical load was expected to influence the
lateral response of the piles.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The response of the bridge under scour was evaluated after the integration. However,
only the responses of the pile head and the base of the bridge pier are presented and
discussed here.
Mokwa and Duncan (2000) pointed out that the pile cap resistance to a lateral load
influenced the behavior of the pile foundation; however, very few researchers have
considered this effect. This study investigated the response of the bridge with and
without a pile cap.
Figure 4 presents the deflection of the pile head under the upstream piers at various
scour depths when the boundary condition of the bridge end abutments is fixed.· The
results show that deflection of the pile head increased with the scour depth. Numerical
results that considered the pile cap effect obtained less deflection of the pile head as
compared with those that ignored the pile cap effect. This comparison shows that the pile
cap could provide significant lateral resistance, increasing the lateral-load carrying
capacity ofthe pile foundation.

Deflection of pile head (mm)

O 5 10 15 20 25
O
--- with pile cap
1 (upstream)
:[ -o- without pile cap

-
.c::
Q.
CII
2

3
(upstream)

...
"C
::::1
o
u
4
ti)
5

6
FIG. 4. Influence of pite cap on deflection of the pite foundation under scour

The influence of the bridge end abutment boundary conditions was also investigated in
this study. Two types of abutments with extreme conditions (denoted as rollers and
ftxity) were considered. The roller model had a single-point constraint and was free in
translation and rotation. The ftxity model contained rigid supports with constraints in
every direction. Figure 5 shows that the deflection of the pile cap increased
exponentially with increased scour depth. If the end abutments were fixed, the pile cap
lateral deflection was much smaller than that if the abutments were supported by rollers.
The actual boundary conditions of the bridge should He between these two bounding

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205 79
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

scenarios. Figure S also shows that the upstream piers had a slightly higher pile cap
deflection than the downstream piers. This difference was caused by the fact that more
lateral loads were applied onto the upstream piers than the downstream piers (Le., the
wind loads and the debris loads were only applied onto the upstream piers).

Deflection of pile cap (mm)

o 20 40 60
o
-o-- Abutment with rollers (upstream)

-o-Abutmentwith rollers (downstream)

g
-... 2 -+- Abutment with fixity (upstream)
~
-+- Abutment with fixity (downstream)
a..
CII 3
'C
~
o
u 4
U)

FIG. S. Deflections oCthe piJe cap at different abutment boundary conditions

Shear force on pile cap (kN)

o 100 200 300
O

§:2
-
~
a..
~ 3
...
~
o
u 4
U)

5
-O- Abutment with rollers (upstream)

6 --- Abutment with fixity (upstream)

FIG. 6. Shear Corees on the piJe cap at different abutment boundary conditions

Figure 6 shows that for the abutments with roUer boundaries, the pile cap carried higher
shear forces than that for the abutments with fixed boundaries. This result is because at
the same external forces on the bridge, the roUer boundaries of the abutment provided

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing
 80 GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 205
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 07/27/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

less support to the bridge thus requiring the pile foundations of the interior piers to
provide more shear force to balance the external loads as compared with the fixity
boundaries ofthe abutments.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of an entire bridge structure under scour conditions was performed in this
study. Integration of the substructure and the superstructure was implemented. Rotation
of the pile head was neglected by implementing a rigid connection between the pile
foundation and the bridge pier. Lateral stiffness was calculated to integrate the
substructure and superstructure lateral behavior. This study showed that scour
significantly increased lateral deflection of the pile head. It was found that the presence
of a pile cap provided significant lateral resistance for the pile foundation; hence lateral
deflections were reduced as compared with the case without a pile cap. The case in
which end abutments were assigned fixed boundaries resulted in less deflection of the
pile cap than the case in which end abutments were assigned roller boundaries. The
response of an actual bridge should bebetween these two conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project is funded by the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)

through the KTRANS programo Mr. John Jones at KDOT is the project monitor. The
authors would like to express their appreciation to KDOT for this support. The results
and opinions presented in this paper are the authors' and do not reflect the policy and
recommendation of KDOT.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association

ofState Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Briaud, J.L., Ting, F. C. K., Chen, H. c., Gudavalli, R., Perugu, S., and Wei, G. (1999).
"SRICOS: Prediction of scour rate in cohesive soils at bridge piers." Journal 01
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(4), 237-246.
Lagasse, P. F., Clopper, P. F., Zevenbergen, L. W., and Girard, L. G. (2007).
"Countermeasures to Protect Bridge Piers from Scour." NCHRP Report No. 593,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Lin, C., Bennett, C.R., Parsons, R.L., and Han, J. (2009). "Evaluation of The Group
Equivalent Pile Approach for laterally loaded Shafts." Proc. 01 the 34th Annual
Conlerence on Deep Foundations, Kansas City, MO.
Mokwa, R. L. and Duncan, J. M. (2000). "Investigation ofthe resistance ofpile caps and
integral abutments to lateral loading." Research Report Submitted to the Virginia
Transporta/ion Research Council, Repor/ No. VTRC OO-CR, Charlottesville, VA.
Richardson, E. V., and Davis, S. R. (1995). " Evaluating scour at bridges." Report No.
FHWA-/P-90-0/7 (HEC 18), Federal Highway Ad-ministration, Washington, D.C.

Copyright ASCE 2010 GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference

Deep Foundations and Geotechnical In Situ Testing