BDM Section 11 - 20180101

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS 11-1
SECTION 11
ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
11.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

This section provides design guidance and construction requirements for
abutments, piers, and retaining walls. Abutments and piers support bridge
superstructures, whereas retaining walls function primarily as earth retaining
structures but can serve a dual purpose as an abutment.
11.2 CODE REQUIREMENTS

The design of abutments, piers, and retaining walls shall be in accordance with AASHTO
AASHTO, this BDM, the Geotechnical Design Manual, and current Staff Bridge Section 11
Worksheets.
11.3 ABUTMENTS
CDOT permits the following abutment types:
• Integral
• Semi-integral
• Tall Wall
• Seat Type
• Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS)
• Other, with approval (i.e., semi-deep, exposed multi-column in front of a
retaining wall, integral on sheet piling)
Abutments shall be designed for all applicable AASHTO load combinations. AASHTO Table
Loads from the girders shall be applied at the centerline of bearing and can be 3.11.6.4-1 &
assumed continuous over the centerline of foundation elements. Dynamic load 3.11.6.5
allowance shall be included in the design of the bearing cap and diaphragm
but not the foundation elements. The Designer need only apply one-half of the
approach slab dead load to the bearing cap. Live loading on the approach slab
may be ignored. If no approach slab is provided, equivalent soil heights for live
load surcharge of varying abutment heights shall be as provided in AASHTO.
If the height of the bearing cap varies more than 18 in. from each end, the AASHTO
Designer should slope the bottom of the cap. 10.7.1.2,
10.7.1.3, &
Pile and drilled shaft spacing and minimum clearances shall be per AASHTO. 10.8.1.2
The minimum foundation element length shall be 10 ft. below bottom of bearing
cap.
The Structure Selection Report shall document the recommended type of
abutment selected for the project.
11.3.1 Integral Abutments
Integral abutments are preferred for most bridges due to the elimination of
expansion joints and bearings at supports, simplified construction, and reduced
maintenance costs. Integral abutments rigidly attach both superstructure and
supporting foundation elements so that the thermal translation and girder end
CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

rotations are transferred from the superstructure through the abutment to the
foundation elements. The superstructure and substructure act as a single
structural unit by distributing system flexibilities throughout the soil.
Use integral abutments where continuous structure units are shorter than the
lengths shown in Table 11-1 (from FHWA Evaluation of Integral Abutments Final
Report, 2006). A bridge unit includes one or more spans and can be separated
at a pier from an adjacent unit by an expansion device or a fixed gap.
Table 11-1: Limiting Structure Lengths for Integral Abutments
Girder Material Maximum Unit Length
Steel 460 ft.
Cast-in-Place Concrete 460 ft.
Precast and Post Tensioned Concrete As calculated (460 ft. max.)
Assumptions:
• Point of movement is located at the midpoint of the bridge unit
• Maximum span lengths shown are per current research
recommendations.
In addition to meeting the maximum unit length restrictions in Table 11-1, the total AASHTO 3.12.2
factored movement in one direction, expanding or contracting, at the integral
abutment from the point of zero movement shall be 2 in. or less. The total
factored movement shall include temperature, creep, shrinkage, and elastic
shortening. The temperature range used to determine the movement shall be
per Section 14 of this BDM and AASHTO. Assume a base uniform temperature
of 60° in calculating the directional movement toward each abutment.
With Staff Bridge approval, greater unit lengths may be used if analysis shows
that abutment, foundation, and superstructure design limits are not exceeded,
and that the expansion joint can accommodate movement at the end of the
approach slab. Include an analysis backing up the decision with the design
calculations for the structure. The Structure Selection Report shall include a
discussion of this approach. CDOT has successfully used longer unit lengths
on integral bridges of 1,000 ft. (for the Vasquez over Colorado Blvd bridge) by
using a finger plate expansion device. Unit lengths when using a 0-4 in. strip
seal shall be limited to 800 ft.
Do not use integral abutments when a straight-line grade between ends of a unit
exceeds 5 percent. Research shows that the presence of high grades tends to
lock up one end, thereby causing higher movements on the other.
During design, a pinned connection is assumed to develop between the pile
cap and foundation element to allow the transfer of vertical and shear loads
into the foundation element. If a pin does not develop, a fixed or partially fixed
condition will be present, which can cause cracking in the deck and girders due
to the developed moment from lack of girder rotation.
The preferred pile orientation is to align the weak axis of the pile with the centerline
of abutment. The Designer should use the detail shown on Figure 11-1. Weak

axis bending generates less resisting force in the piles from unintended frame-
action with the superstructure and better accommodates bridge displacements,
when compared with strong axis bending. A single row of piles shall be used
with integral abutments.
To increase pile flexibility, the Designer should use the details shown on
Figure 11-1 and shall determine the pile depth to establish stability. In a cut
situation, pile flexibility is achieved by drilling oversized holes for the first 10 ft.
and filling the annular space with loose pea gravel or an approved alternative.
In a fill situation, the Designer shall provide a corrugated metal or HDPE pipe
for the pile to sit inside. Specify this hole to have a minimum diameter of pile
d + 1 ft., where “d” is pile depth. This detail increases the depth to point of
fixity, thereby decreasing pile stiffness. Assume the point of fixity for laterally
loaded piling as either the location of zero movement or location of maximum
moment. The pile should extend a minimum length of 10 ft. beyond the prebore/
pipe and through the overburden until stability is achieved. Design the single
row of piles as an axial loaded beam-column interaction. Check steel H-piles
for lateral stability and buckling capacities. Ignore soil confinement to the full
depth of estimated scour and limits of pea gravel fill. Consider a semi-integral
abutment configuration or seat type abutment if there is uncertainty about the
development of a pin, insufficient flexibility, or integral abutment design criteria
cannot be met.
Drilled shafts may be used for integral abutments provided a pin detail such
as that shown on Figure 11-2 is specified at the top of caisson. Extending fully
developed drilled shaft reinforcing around the perimeter into the bearing cap
prevents a pin from forming and is not permitted. Design dowels connecting the
drilled shaft to the bearing seat for seismic loading.
To ensure that girder ends will rotate during the deck pour, the Designer shall
add a note to the plans requiring the Contractor to pour the deck within two
hours of the integral diaphragms.
The depth of the integral abutment, measured from top of deck to bottom of
pile cap, shall be less than or equal to 13 ft. The maximum pile cap depth shall
be less than or equal to 6 ft. and the minimum shall be 3.5 ft. The bottom of
the bearing cap shall be embedded 1.5 ft. minimum into the embankment and
provide 2 ft. minimum from the top of the embankment to the bottom of the
girder. If the bridge is curved, the maximum degree of curvature shall be less
than or equal to 5°.
Skewed bridges induce biaxial bending into the foundation elements from
passive soil pressure. Unless otherwise approved by Staff Bridge, limit skew
angles to 30° or less. The Designer shall also include in the analysis all forces
that rotate the structure.
On skewed bridges, the Designer shall provide 3 in. minimum clearance from
the girder flanges to the back face of abutment. If sufficient clearance is not
provided, the flange shall be coped or the abutment width increased. The coping
shall parallel the centerline of abutment and not extend across the girder web.

For pre-tensioned or post-tensioned concrete bridges, use methods to increase

foundation flexibility when the girder contraction due to elastic shortening, creep,
shrinkage and temperature fall exceeds 1 in. Methods include temporarily
sliding elements between the diaphragm and bearing cap, details that increase
the foundation flexibility, or other approved details. Take steps to ensure that
the movement capability at the end of the approach slab is not exceeded.
Figure 11-1: Integral Abutment on H-Piles

Notes:
1. All abutment and wingwall concrete shall be Class D (Bridge).
2. Extend strands, per design, from the bottom of precast sections into the
abutment. See Staff Bridge Worksheets.
3. Anchor the bottom of steel girder sections to the abutment with studs,
bearing stiffeners, anchor bolts, or diaphragm gussets.
4. Pour the deck and portion above the bearing seat within 2 hours of each
other.
5. Reinforcing steel shall be determined by design.
6. All reinforcing shall be epoxy coated or corrosion resistant.
7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs parallel to girders.
8. For integral abutments on drilled shafts, height of gap between top of

caisson and bottom of diaphragm shall be verified to ensure that girder
rotation will not cause the gap to close.
9. Use a leveling pad designed per Section 14.5.7 of this BDM on integral
type abutments.
10. For thermal stress relief, H-Pile should have the weak axis aligned with
centerline of abutment. Strong pile axis alignment is allowed provided
thermal modeling with a refined method of pile-soil interaction analysis
to determine actual movement is used and full thermal movement is
accommodated.
11. Include the cost of pipe (CMP/HDPE), prebore, and fill material inside pipe
(pea gravel or approved alternative) in the work.
12. The field splice weld zones defined in Section 10.5.4 of this BDM shall be
noted in the plans.
13. Grout #7 Bars into the PVC sleeve prior to the diaphragm pour. The girder
worksheet should show the cast in PVC sleeve instead of a coil tie.

Figure 11-2: Integral Abutment on Drilled Shafts

(For details of reinforcement, refer to Figure 11-1.
See Notes 1-13 with Figure 11-1.)
11.3.2 Semi-integral Abutments
Semi-integral abutments are like integral abutments because both eliminate

the expansion joints at supports and encase the girder ends in concrete. The
difference is that the pin for a semi-integral abutment is located at the top of
bearing seat via a bearing device and the foundation element connection at the
bottom of bearing cap is fixed. The bearings accommodate the rotational and
horizontal movements. Using spread footings, footings on piles or drilled shafts,
multiple rows of piles, or drilled shafts can establish abutment fixity.

When semi-integral abutments are used, intermediate shear blocks between

girders or end blocks beyond the edge of deck shall allow a means for lateral
load distribution to the substructure. If a shear block is not practical, use anchor
bolts with a sole plate. The Designer shall provide an area to allow for jacking
the superstructure and bearing replacement per Section 14.5.6 of this BDM.
Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4 show semi-integral abutments on drilled shafts.
Figure 11-3: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 1)

Notes:
2. Extend strands, per design, from the bottom of precast sections into the
abutment. See Staff Bridge Worksheets.
3. Anchor the bottom of steel girder sections to the abutment with studs,
bearing stiffeners, anchor bolts, or diaphragm gussets.
4. Pour the deck and portion above the bearing seat within 2 hours of each
other.
7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs parallel to girders.
8. Provide lateral restraint with anchor bolts and/or intermediate or end

shear blocks.
9. Bearings pads designed per Section 14.5 of this BDM are required for
semi-integral abutment types. Leveling pads are not allowed.
10. Grout #7 Bars into the PVC sleeve prior to the diaphragm pour. The girder
worksheet should show the cast in PVC sleeve instead of a coil tie.

Figure 11-4: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 2)

(See Notes with Figure 11-3)
11.3.3 Seat Type Abutments
Seat type abutments have an expansion gap between the backwall and end of
girders, as shown on Figure 11-5, and are typically used when large movements
require a modular expansion device rather than a strip seal placed at the end of
the approach slab. To provide a pinned connection between the superstructure
and substructure, place the girders on bearing devices, thereby allowing
rotational and horizontal movements. Using seat type abutments is discouraged
due to the high maintenance costs associated with leaking expansion joints,
substandard expansion device performance, and being prone to rotation and
closing the expansion device.

Figure 11-5: Seat Type Abutment

Notes:
4. Apply an epoxy protective coating to the exposed portion of backwall, top

of bearing seat, and front face of bearing cap.
5. Bearings pads designed per Section 14.5 of this BDM are required for seat
type abutments. Leveling pads are not allowed.
6. To decrease a lateral load pressure on backface of abutment, a woven

fabric soil reinforcing straps with 12 in. typical spacing with 3 in. low density
polystyrene board or collapsible cardboard isolator may be used.
11.3.4 Tall Wall Abutments

Tall wall abutments, as shown on Figure 11-6, are used to shorten span lengths
and are typically located at the approximate front toe of approach embankment.
Depending on the required height, they can be founded on a single row of
drilled shafts, footing on piles, or footing on drilled shafts. Due to the high cost
of concrete, careful cost comparisons should be done before using this type of
abutment instead of lengthening the bridge span. Architectural requirements
can drive the use of this type of abutment rather than cost. The details shown
in the semi-integral or seat type abutment sections can be used to connect the
superstructure to the substructure.

Figure 11-6: Tall Wall Abutment
11.3.5 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Abutments

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) is a type of retaining structure that
consists of closely spaced (12 in. or less) geosynthetic reinforcement installed
in granular backfill, along with an approved facing system. GRS can be used at
bridge abutments to directly support the bridge superstructure without the use
of deep foundations. Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Integrated Bridge System

(GRS-IBS) is a unique application of GRS bridge abutments. Compared to a

conventional GRS abutment, which combines GRS with traditional elements
of bridge design, GRS-IBS integrates the bridge approach, abutment, and
superstructure to create a joint-free bridge system, without deep foundations
or approach slabs.
The primary advantage of GRS abutments is that differential settlement between

the approach fill and the bridge is minimized. The abutment fill supports the
bridge, decreasing the severity of the “bump at the end of the bridge.”
Other potential advantages of GRS compared to conventional bridges supported

on deep foundations include, but are not limited to:
• Decreased cost
• Accelerated construction
• Decreased reliance on specialized equipment and skilled labor for
construction
• Flexible design that can be adjusted easily in the field to fit actual conditions
• Decreased maintenance due to the lack of expansion devices
GRS has been used most widely to support single-span bridges. However, the
use of GRS to support continuous-span bridges is also feasible.
As discussed in the following subsections, GRS is not appropriate for sites

where significant post-construction settlement or scour is expected.
11.3.5.1 Structure Selection Requirements

For bridges meeting one or more of the following structural, geotechnical,
and hydraulic criteria, GRS shall be considered during the structure selection
process:
a. Single or continuous span bridges where long-term foundation

settlement is anticipated to be less than 1 in.
b. Single-span bridges where bearing seat elevations can be adjusted
during construction to provide the required vertical clearance, accounting
for the anticipated short- and long-term foundation settlement.
c. Bridges where scour is negligible or can be mitigated to a negligible
level by features such as a cut-off apron wall, riprap, a reinforced soil
foundation (see FHWA-HRT-11-026), or a combination thereof.
11.3.5.2 Design Criteria

GRS shall be designed in accordance with this BDM, the CDOT Geotechnical
Design Manual, the FHWA publication Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated
Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide, FHWA-HRT-11-026 (FHWA,
2012), and AASHTO. The design shall be completed using LRFD methodology
(see Appendix C of FHWA-HRT-11-026).

Additional geotechnical borings may be required to adequately characterize

settlement of GRS abutments, particularly the settlement of the integration
zone (i.e., the reinforced transition zone immediately behind the abutment). The
geotechnical exploration shall be sufficient to characterize short- and long-term
settlement of the GRS abutments. As appropriate, obtain relatively undisturbed
thin-wall tube samples during the field investigation for consolidation testing to
support the evaluation of post-construction settlement behavior.
The design of GRS abutments is an iterative procedure requiring coordination

among the structural, geotechnical, and hydraulics engineers, e.g., the
Geotechnical Engineer must know footing dimensions and bearing pressures to
estimate settlement values. Therefore, the design disciplines should coordinate
as necessary for the evaluation and design of GRS abutments.
11.3.5.3 Settlement
The tolerable settlement is defined in terms of angular distortion between AASHTO LRFD
supports. Without a refined superstructure and substructure interaction analysis, 10.5.2.2 &
use the angular distortion requirements stipulated in AASHTO as a guide. C10.5.2.2
The primary factor in the design of a GRS abutment is tolerable settlement, which
is closely related to superstructure continuity (simple or continuous). Achieving
and maintaining vertical clearance requirements must also be considered.
Settlement of GRS abutments includes short-term settlement (occurring during

construction) due to the elastic compression of foundation materials and long-
term (post-construction) settlement, which can occur due to time-dependent
consolidation of clay soils. Settlement also includes compression of the GRS
itself.
Consider the estimated short- and long-term settlement when establishing

abutment girder seat elevations. Evaluate actual loads and loading sequences
before and after girder placement. For phased construction, evaluate the
settlement between abutment phases to determine if a closure pour is needed.
Surcharging and/or subgrade improvement measures can also be used to limit
the differential settlements between phases.
During construction, monitor and record settlements before and after placement
of girders and deck. Provide these settlements to the Bridge Designer and
Geotechnical Engineer for their information. Due to the variability in methods
available for settlement monitoring, write a Project Special Provision to indicate
the method to use, minimum number of points to monitor, preservation of points,
reporting frequency, and measurement and payment criteria.
Uncertainty in the calculation and estimation of settlement values can contribute

to the risk of unsatisfactory long-term performance of a structure. However,
the risk can be managed by considering the likelihood and consequences of
settlement that are greater than the estimated values. For example, a single-
span bridge can tolerate more angular distortion than a continuous-span
bridge. Similarly, settlement of granular soils occurs relatively quickly and could

be compensated for during construction. Post-construction settlement could

also be corrected by adding an asphalt overlay, but the weight of the additional
overlay should be considered in the design. The risk of long-term settlement
can also be reduced by surcharging or pre-loading.
11.3.5.4 Approach Slabs and Pre-camber

For single-span bridges less than 100 ft. long and continuous-span bridges with
a total length less than 250 ft., CDOT prefers to use asphalt-paved approaches
and no expansion joints. See Figure 11-12.
To compensate for long-term differential settlement of the abutment and the

adjacent roadway, a pre-camber (increase in proposed profile to account for
settlement) of 1/100 longitudinal grade is allowed at either the expansion joint
at the end of the approach slab or, for bridges without an approach slab, at the
back face of abutment, as shown on Figure 11-11 and Figure 11-12, respectively.
The asphalt pavement camber can be accomplished with added asphalt during
construction or post-construction resurfacing if the actual settlement is greater
than that estimated.
The amount of pre-camber should be sufficient to compensate for long-term

differential settlement and to eliminate ponding near the expansion joint, if used.
Depending on the abutment height, a ½ in. to ¾ in. pre-camber has typically
been specified over the approach slab length. In addition to the pre-camber, a
4 in. PVC trough (a PVC pipe cut in half and daylighted at the edge of roadway),
matching the roadway cross slope, should be used under the expansion joint to
capture surface run-off and reduce infiltration into the GRS.
11.3.5.5 Design and Detailing Requirements

Figure 11-7 through Figure 11-17 provide example details for GRS abutment
design. The following represent additional requirements and considerations:
a. Connect the soil reinforcement directly under the girder seat spread footing
to the facing with either a frictional or a mechanical connection.
b. Limit the nominal soil bearing resistance beneath the spread footing to
14,000 pounds per square foot or as stated in the project geotechnical
report. Higher bearing pressures may be feasible depending on the
maximum grain size of the backfill and the spacing and properties of the
reinforcement.
c. Require a setback equal to H/3, with a minimum value of 3 ft., from the
back of the facing to the centerline of the Service I resultant, where H is
the height from the bottom of the spread footing to the roadway.
See Figure 11-9 and Figure 11-10.
d. Use reinforced concrete for the girder seat and back wall.
e. Provide a GRS slope face with the reinforcement wrapped up and around
the face of the individual soil layers and anchored (burrito wrap) behind
the abutment and wingwalls.

f. Require a minimum vertical clearance of 2 ft. from the top of wall facing to
the bottom of girder (see Figure 11-7 through Figure 11-10 and Chapter 11
in the Bridge Detail Manual).
g. Use concrete for the leveling pad at the base of the GRS abutment.
h. Provide drainage measures to reduce the likelihood of water accumulating
in the GRS backfill. Appropriate drainage features could include
encapsulating the top of the reinforced soil zone with dual-track seamed
thermal welded geomembrane or providing an internal drainage system.
i. Provide a 3 in. minimum thick low-density polystyrene, collapsible cardboard
void, or a void space with burrito wrap geosynthetic reinforcement behind
the abutment back wall to isolate the back wall from the GRS backfill and
to allow thermal expansion of the bridge.
j. Provide a 6 in. wide polystyrene spacer or 3 in. minimum clear space
between the back of wall facing to the toe of abutment spread footing to
accommodate thermal movement.
k. Extend the length of abutment soil reinforcement as a stiffness transition
zone into the roadway embankment with a 1H(min):1V slope for cut or
2H(min):1V slope for fill to mitigate differential settlement caused by
dissimilar foundations.
l. Use GRS abutments with a truncated base (minimum reinforcement
length of 0.35DH, where DH is the design height measured from
the top of the leveling pad to the roadway) and cut benches with a
maximum height of 4 ft. if the global stability requirements are met (see
Figure 11-7). GRS abutments with a truncated base are more likely to meet
global stability requirements in cut conditions rather than fill conditions.
m. For bridges with a non-yielding foundation at the pier(s) and a semi-yielding
reinforced soil/foundation at abutment(s), there is a possibility that cracks
will appear in the top of the deck over the first pier near the abutment.
Cover these cracks with waterproofing membrane and asphalt overlay;
however, with bare concrete decks, check the crack size and rigorously
control or mitigate with FRP top reinforcement in the deck.

Figure 11-7: GRS Abutment (Cut Case)

Figure 11-8: GRS Abutment (Fill Case)

Figure 11-9: Integrated Girder Seat with Footer
Figure 11-10: Separated Girder Seat with Footer

Figure 11-11: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Expansion Joint,
Concrete Slab, and Roadway Pavement)

Figure 11-12: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Asphalt

Pavement Approach Slab and No Expansion Joint)

11.3.6 Wingwalls
11.3.6.1 Wingwall Design Length
The wingwalls, as shown on Figure 11-13, shall be laid out from a working
point defined as the intersection of abutment back face and wingwall fill face
to 4 ft. minimum beyond the point of intersection of the embankment slope
with the finished roadway grade. In most situations, using the working point
provides the Contractor economy of design by having the same wingwall length
at opposite corners. It is preferred that the wingwall be constructed parallel
to girders to minimize the soil pressure against the wingwalls. The maximum
integral wingwall length from the working point shall be 20 ft. If a longer wingwall
is required, as shown on Figure 11-14, the Designer should use a maximum of
a 10 ft. long integral wingwall in conjunction with an independent wingwall to
achieve the required design length. It is not desirable to add a footing or support
at the end of wingwalls for integral abutments unless provision for movement
and rotation are provided. It is acceptable to support the wingwall ends on seat
type abutments, on semi-integral abutments if the wingwall is not attached to
the superstructure, or where no abutment rotation is expected.
The Designer needs to be aware of the various effects of soil on wingwalls
and design for the anticipated loading due to the downdrag from fill settlement
or uplift due to expansive soils. These forces can cause cracking of the
wingwalls and abutment if they are not accounted for. If significant movement
is predicted, the Geotechnical Report shall provide design recommendations
and coordinate with the Designer on possible solutions. The Designer should
analyze the torsional effects from the soil on the wingwall abutment connection
and determine if 135° hooked stirrups are required.
11.3.6.2 Wingwall Design Loads

Design cantilevered wingwalls for tangent, non-skewed bridges for an active
equivalent fluid pressure as recommended in the Geotechnical Report but
not less than 36 psf. Design all other wingwalls for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure recommended in the Geotechnical Report but not less than 57 psf.
At-rest pressure is recommended for design in most cases because wingwalls
on non-square bridges may undergo a transverse deflection into the backfill
during longitudinal bridge movements, which could increase the pressure
above active level.
The wingwall analysis shall include live load surcharge load per
AASHTO 3.11.6.4, regardless of the presence of an approach slab. Do not
include vehicular collision unless the barrier is attached to the top of the wingwall.
Due to equilibrium of fill pressures on each side of the wingwall, the Designer
may ignore the earth pressure below a line that extends from a point 3 ft.
below the top of the wingwall at the end of the wingwall to another point at the
bottom of the wingwall at the back face of the abutment. For erosion along the
outside of the wingwall, 3 ft. is an assumed depth. This loading configuration is
trapezoidal. Refer to Design Example 8: Cantilever Wingwall Design Loads for
sample calculations and equations.

Figure 11-13: Wingwall Details
Figure 11-14: Independent Wing Connection Detail

11.3.7 Approach Slabs

Construct approach slabs to match the required roadway width and sidewalk
approaches. When a guardrail transition is required, the Designer shall provide
6 in. between the outside face of the bridge rail and the inside face of the
wingwall. See Figure 11-13, Section A. This clearance may be eliminated when
no guardrail transition is required or when rail anchor slab is used.
If not using the details shown on the Staff Bridge Worksheets, design the AASHTO
approach slab per AASHTO. Limit post-construction settlement at the free end Sections 3 & 5
of the slab to 1 in. If the Geotechnical Engineer anticipates settlement greater
than 1 in., the Designer shall incorporate plan details to mitigate the amount of
settlement to 1 in. or less. One possible mitigation detail would be to raise the
end of approach slab by the anticipated long-term settlement. For additional
information on approach slabs, see Section 2.13 of this BDM and Staff Bridge
Worksheets.
11.4 PIERS
Bridge piers provide intermediate support to the superstructure and a load path
to the foundation. Suitable types of piers include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Solid Wall Piers

• Multi-Column (Frame) Piers
• Single Column (Hammerhead) Piers
• Straddle Bent Piers
Forces acting on the pier in the vertical, longitudinal, and transverse direction AASHTO 11.7.1
shall be per AASHTO. The connection between the superstructure and pier
should be pinned by use of bearings or a key detail, allowing rotation in
the longitudinal direction of the superstructure and eliminating longitudinal
moment transfer to the substructure. Fixed or integral connections between
the superstructure and substructure are not desirable. If the bridge is being
designed with staged construction, each stage shall meet AASHTO.
The bearing cap should be a sufficient width and length to support the
superstructure, meet support length requirements, and provide adequate
bearings edge distances. A recommended pier width to depth ratio is less than
or equal to 1.25. If the depth of the cap varies more than 18 in. from each
end, slope the bottom of the cap. For precast prestressed concrete girder
superstructure types, place the bearing lines a minimum of 12 in. normal to
the centerline of cap. The minimum cap size shall be 3 ft. by 3 ft. and should
increase thereafter by 3 in. increments. In section, the cap should overhang the
column by 3 in. minimum. The length of the cap should extend close to the edge
of deck and be rounded to the nearest inch.

When designing the pier cap for negative moment, the preferred design plane
is located at the face of the column or equivalent square for a round column. To
properly model the column / pier cap connection, provide a rigid link from the
centerline column to the face of the column. If a rigid link is not provided, use
the maximum moment at the centerline of column. See Section 5.4.11 of this
BDM for pier cap reinforcing details.
To ensure that the girder ends will rotate during the deck pour, the Designer
shall add a note to the plans requiring the Contractor to pour the deck within two
hours of the integral diaphragms.
Coordinate the selection of column type with the architect and CDOT. Possible
column types include, but are not limited to, round, square, rectangular, tapered,
and oblong. Standard forms should be used whenever possible and shall be
2 ft-6 in. minimum. To match standard form sizes, round, rectangular, and square
columns should have length and width dimensions in 3 in. increments. When
the columns are tall, place construction joints at approximately 30 ft. spacing.
The preferred method of analysis for columns is moment magnification.
In lieu of moment magnification analysis, a second-order analysis is required.

If magnification factors computed using AASHTO exceed about 1.4, then a
second-order analysis will likely show significant benefits. The second-order
analysis of the frame can be modeled using nonlinear finite element analysis
software. AASHTO Seismic 4.11.5 discusses P-∆ effects and when they should
be considered in the design.
Unless in a seismic zone as defined in Section 5.4.9 of this BDM or requested AASHTO
otherwise, tied hoops are preferred for transverse reinforcement, rather than 4.5.3.2.2
spirals. The column spacing on framed piers should balance the dead load
moments in the cap.
When setting the foundation location, the Designer shall provide 2 ft. minimum
cover on top of the foundation element. To protect from frost heave, place the
bottom of any footing below the frost depth indicated in the Geotechnical Report
and no less than 3 ft. minimum below finished grade. See Section 10.4.2 of this
BDM for additional details.
The minimum depth of a footing on pile/drilled shafts and spread footings is

2 ft.-6 in. A footing on pile/drilled shafts shall have a minimum of four pile/drilled
shaft elements.
When placing a pier in the floodplain, the Designer should align the pier with
the 100-year flood flow. The preferred pier location is outside the floodplain
whenever possible. To prevent drift buildup and when recommended by the
Hydraulics Engineer, provide web walls between columns. The Designer shall
consider the effects of uplift due to buoyancy forces when designing piers
located in floodplains. Final pier locations should be coordinated with the
Hydraulics Engineer.

When checking cracking, all caps and columns shall use Class 1 exposure
condition. Foundation elements shall use Class 2 exposure condition.
The Structure Selection Report shall document the selected pier type and its
location for the project.
If the pier has bearings that may need future maintenance or replacement, the
Designer should show jacking locations and loads on the drawings.
The Designer shall account for the 3 in. of permissible drilled shaft misalignment
allowed by the specifications as it pertains to column and pier cap alignment.
For example, for situations where the column steel will have a contact lap
splice with projected drilled shaft reinforcing, the column is required to follow
the drilled shaft if the drilled shaft is misaligned. Therefore, provide at least 6 in.
cover from column reinforcement to pier cap side face. This way, if the column
is off by 3 in., there will still be 3 in. of cover with no need to adjust the pier cap
location. Also provide adequate dimensional tolerance between the column and
drilled shaft via a non-contact lap splice, either by oversizing the drilled shaft or
oversizing the column. In these cases, the inside cage should be able to move
laterally by 3 in. without compromising the design or details of the members.

Figure 11-15: Column-Drilled Shaft Connection Details

11.4.1 Multi-Column Piers

Multi-column piers, the most commonly used pier type, consist of two or more
transversely spaced columns. This type of pier is designed as a frame about
the transverse direction (strong axis of the pier). The columns are usually fixed
at the base and supported by one of the following foundation types: spread
footing, footing on pile/drilled shafts, or drilled shafts.
11.4.2 Single Column (Hammerhead) Piers
Single column (Hammerhead, Tee) piers are usually supported at the base by
a drilled shaft, spread footing, or footing on pile/ drilled shafts. Either the pier
cap can be pinned in the longitudinal direction to the pier diaphragm and the
diaphragm poured monolithically with the superstructure or the pier cap can
be poured integrally with the superstructure. The column cross section can be
various shapes and can be either prismatic or flared to form to the pier cap.
It is recommended that hammerhead style piers be modeled using the strut-
and-tie method. This method creates an internal truss system that transfers the
load from the bearings through the cap to the columns. The truss uses a series
of compressive concrete struts and tensile steel ties to transfer the loads. Place
nodes at each loading and support point. The angle between truss members
should be between 25° minimum and 65° maximum with a preferred angle
of 45°. If a wide column is used, place two or more nodes at points along the
column.
11.4.3 Solid Wall Piers
Design solid wall piers per AASHTO. Assume the top of pier wall to be pinned or AASHTO
free at the top. Support the bottom of wall on either a spread footing or footing 5.10.11.4.2
on piles/drilled shafts.
11.4.4 Straddle Bent Piers
Use straddle bent piers where there is a geometrical constraint in placing the
piers. Such geometrical restrictions can be one or more of the following:
• Spanning a wide roadway
• Right-of-way (ROW) issues not permitting placing columns under the
bridge
• Presence of railroad tracks to span over
• Presence of underground utilities where relocating them can be cost
prohibitive
• Other
Straddle bent piers are non-redundant structures that can be conventionally
reinforced, pre-tensioned or post-tensioned. Consider constructability, cost,
span, and construction schedule when selecting the type of bent style.
Steel straddle bent caps are not permitted due to corrosion issues, inspection
access concerns, fracture critical designation, high cost, and maintenance
issues.

11.4.5 Aesthetics
Special corridor projects and signature bridges can have variations of the
standard pier types or entirely unique pier designs. Coordination with Staff
Bridge is essential at the preliminary phase of the project to determine the
aesthetic requirements. The Structure Selection Report should document all
aesthetic treatments required by the project.
11.4.6 Details
When a footing on pile is used, refer to Figure 11-16.
Figure 11-16: Footing on Pile

11.5 RETAINING WALLS

Design permanent retaining walls for a service life based on AASHTO. Design AASHTO
retaining walls for temporary applications for a service life of 3 years. Section 11
Retaining walls can be classified into three categories according to their basic
mechanisms of soil retention and source of support. Externally stabilized
systems use a physical structure to retain the soil. Internally stabilized systems
involve reinforcement (e.g., soil nails and geosynthetics) to support loads. The
third system is a hybrid that combines elements of both externally and internally
stabilized systems.
Calculate earth pressures in accordance with AASHTO. The Designer shall use AASHTO
Coulomb’s earth pressure theory to determine the active coefficient of lateral Section 3.11.5
earth pressure. The minimum equivalent fluid due to soil pressure shall be
36 pcf. If the wall design height is less than 4 ft. and a geotechnical report is not
required or has not been provided, the Designer may assume a nominal soil
bearing capacity of 6 ksf.
Settlement criteria will depend on the wall type and project constraints, such
as nearby structures and the project schedule. The structural and geotechnical
engineers should coordinate to select and design an appropriate wall system
capable of meeting project requirements. For instance, the bearing resistance
of wall footings will depend on the footing size.
Provide weep holes or a drainage system behind the wall stem to prevent water
accumulation. The Designer should reference Staff Bridge Worksheets for
required size and spacing of weep holes or provide drainage system details in
the project plans. The final drainage system selected will depend on the amount
of water anticipated to infiltrate into the backfill and shall consider groundwater
conditions.
Runoff shall not be permitted to pass freely over the wall; rather, a wall coping,
drain system, or a properly designed ditch shall be used to carry runoff water
along the wall to be properly deposited. Where this is not feasible, such as soil
nail walls in steep terrain, the Designer shall coordinate with Staff Bridge to
develop a solution that has concurrence from Region Maintenance and Bridge
Asset Management.
When laying out walls, if possible, provide a 10 ft. inspection zone in front of the
wall. The Designer must consider ROW limits for placement of the footings and
if temporary easements are needed for excavation. Any wall footings, straps,
soil anchors, or other wall elements shall be contained within the established
ROW limits unless a permanent easement is obtained. The Designer shall
coordinate with the Roadway Engineer to determine final wall layouts and
grading requirements.
The Wall Structure Selection Report shall be provided per Section 2.10.4 of this
BDM. Appendix 11A contains worksheets to assist in developing wall selection
options.

The following are the most common retaining walls used in Colorado:
11.5.1 Cantilever Retaining Wall
Cast-in-place and precast cantilever retaining wall systems are considered
semi-gravity walls. Conventional cantilever walls consist of a concrete stem and
a concrete footing, both of which are relatively thin and fully reinforced to resist
the moment and shear to which they are subject. A cantilever wall foundation
can be either a spread footing or a footing on deep foundations. Document the
recommendation of the soil parameters and preferred foundation type in the
Geotechnical Report and include in the plan set.
For retaining walls without concrete curb or barrier attached to the top of the
wall, top of the wall shall be a minimum of 6 in. above the ground at the back
face.
If a shear key is required to provide adequate sliding resistance, place it
approximately one-third of the footing width from the heel to the centerline of
the key. If additional depth for development length of the reinforcing is needed,
it may be shifted to under the stem in lieu of increasing the footing thickness.
Passive resistance shall be neglected in stability calculations and shall not
be counted on for sliding resistance unless a shear key below frost depth is
provided. Soil that may be removed due to future construction, erosion, or scour
shall not be included in determining passive sliding resistance. The Designer
shall, at a minimum, ignore the top 1 ft. of front face fill when determining sliding
resistance. See Figure 11-17 for the passive resistance loading due to the shear
key.
Protect retaining wall spread footings from frost heave by placing the bottom
of the footing a minimum of 3 ft. below finished grade at front face. Top of
footings shall have a minimum of 1.50 ft. of cover.
Sloped footings are permitted with a maximum slope of 10 percent.
Stepped footings may be used with maximum step of 4 ft.
Reinforcement should be as shown on Figure 11-18.

Figure 11-17: Shear Key
Figure 11-18: Cantilever Retaining Wall Reinforcement

11.5.2 Counterfort Retaining Wall

Counterfort retaining walls, another type of semi-gravity wall, are an economical
option for wall heights 25 ft. and taller. They are designed to carry loads in two
directions. The horizontal earth pressure is carried laterally to the counterfort
through the stem. The counterfort is a thickened portion that extends normal to
the stem and is used to transfer the overturning loads directly to the foundation.
11.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall

MSE walls, as detailed in the Staff Bridge Worksheets, are reinforced soil
retaining wall systems that consist of vertical or near vertical facing panels or
blocks, metallic or polymeric tensile soil reinforcement, and granular backfill.
MSE walls are typically classified into one-stage and two-stage, where two-
stage are used for large long-term settlements as outlined in Section 11.5.3.3
of this BDM. The strength and stability of MSE walls derive from the composite
response due to the frictional interaction between the reinforcement and the
granular fill. MSE systems can be classified according to the reinforcement
geometry, stress transfer mechanism, reinforcement material, extensibility of
the reinforcement material, and type of facing.
Sufficient ROW is required to install the reinforcing strips that extend into the AASHTO
backfill area 8 ft. minimum, 70 percent of the wall height or as per design 11.10.2.1
requirements, whichever is greater. Truncated base or linearly varied reinforced
zone per Staff Bridge Worksheets is allowed in cut conditions; they can be
used when space constraint is a concern. Barrier curbs constructed over or in
line with the front face of the wall shall have adequate room provided laterally
between the back of the curb or slab and wall facing so that load is not directly
transmitted to the top wall facing units. For more details, refer to Staff Bridge
Worksheets B-504-V1.
For block walls and partial height panel facing walls, set the leveling pad a
minimum of 18 in. from finished grade at front face to top of pad. When using
full height panels, set them a minimum of 3 ft. below finished grade at front
face to top of pad. If the front face fill is sloped in either direction, the Designer
shall provide a 4 ft. minimum horizontal bench measured from the front face
of facing. MSE structures are considered earth structures and are not subject
to the minimum depth requirements for frost heave. The concrete leveling pad
shall be reinforced along its entire length in both directions.
For a retaining wall with a rail anchor slab placed at the top of the wall, allow
a minimum 8 ft. wide (including rail), 20 ft. long monolithically constructed
reinforced concrete barrier and slab system to carry and spread loads. See
Design Example 12, Rail Anchor Slab Design, for additional information on the
design of a rail anchor slab.
Attach a minimum 12 in. wide geotextile to the back face of all joints in facing
panels to reduce the loss of backfill through the joints.

The Designer shall reference the Standard Special Provisions, Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and Staff Bridge Worksheets
for the most current design requirements and material properties required for
design.
11.5.3.1 Two-Stage MSE Walls

Depending on the particular wall system, single-stage MSE walls can typically
tolerate a maximum of 1 ft. of total settlement (short term + long term) or
1 percent of wall height for differential settlement. Staff Bridge Worksheets
allow 1 in. of differential settlement but depends on the final detail used. When
settlement greater than noted above is anticipated, use two-stage MSE walls or
modified details. During the first stage, the reinforced soil mass is constructed
and left to settle until the remaining settlement is within the tolerances of the
permanent facing. Settlement could be accelerated by installing wick drains, if
necessary. The second stage is the installation of the permanent wall facing.
Other options to mitigate the long-term settlement, such as excavation and

replacement of soil, deep foundations, and ground improvement, may be
more expensive than a two-stage wall. In the Structure Selection Report, all
alternatives should compare settlement mitigation, schedule, constructability,
and cost.
11.5.3.2 Precast Concrete Panel Wall

MSE walls often use a fascia consisting of precast concrete panels. Full height
or segmental panels based on the corridor architectural requirements are
allowed.
Full height panel width is limited to 10 ft. and the height to 30 ft. The use of
larger panel dimensions will require the approval of Staff Bridge and must be
documented in the Structure Selection Report.
The segmental panel area is limited to a maximum of 50 sf. with a minimum

panel height of 2.5 ft.
MSE wall panels are considered sacrificial and do not require design for the
vehicular collision force (CT), unless directed otherwise.
The segmental panel will tolerate more differential settlement than the full
height panel.
11.5.3.3 Modular Block Wall

Block wall facing is made of various shapes and colors of concrete block units
that will fit many architectural needs and has been specifically designed and
manufactured for retaining wall application. Two types of blocks are available
for use: dry cast and wet cast. Dry cast blocks have shown a propensity to
degrade with age and exposure to weather and salts and can be difficult and
expensive to repair. Wet cast blocks have been shown not to have many of
these issues.

This type of retaining wall will tolerate greater differential settlement between
the blocks than a segmental panel or full height panel.
Use of dry cast blocks in a wall is not a preferred option adjacent to a roadway
due to challenges of repair in the event of vehicular collision, water intrusion,
and deterioration from de-icing chemicals. Dry cast blocks are an acceptable
facing solution for landscape walls and around detention basins.
CDOT has experienced wall failures when using blocks in front of soil nail walls
with inadequate block anchoring. To prevent future failures, the Designer shall
apply the full earth pressure to the block anchorage connection.
11.5.3.4 Cast-in-Place and/or Shotcrete Facing

MSE walls can also have a cast-in-place (CIP) facing in front of the reinforced
soil mass. The CIP facing can be either CIP and/or shotcrete concrete.
11.5.3.5 GRS Walls

This type of wall is generic (non-proprietary) and has a single grade of woven
geotextile spaced at 8 in., including 4 ft. of tail soil reinforcement. Every modular
block facing in a GRS wall is connected with a layer of soil reinforcement,
Reinforcement-to-block connection mechanism is primarily based on friction
and clamping action. Soil reinforcement-to-block pullout test is waived for this
type of MSE wall, thus no soil reinforcement schedule or shop drawing submittal
is required.
The design Engineer of Record shall thoroughly check internal, external, and
global stability. The geotechnical report shall address temporary cut slope
stability.
11.5.3.6 Truncated Base Walls

For a MSE wall within a cut condition, a truncated base soil reinforcing zone
can provide an economical space constrained solution. The truncated base of
trapezoidal soil reinforcing zone shall be 45 percent of design wall height or
4 ft., whichever is greater. The linearly varied soil reinforcement length and its
maximum length at top depend on temporary cut slope stability. Use of this type
of MSE wall is determined by geotechnical stability.
11.5.3.7 Collision on MSE Walls

MSE wall panels are considered sacrificial and do not require design for the
vehicular collision force (CT), unless directed otherwise.
When railing attachments use a moment slab, the top panel directly under the
slab shall be designed and separated by expansion joint material. For design
of the soil reinforcement directly under the slab, a 54 kip collision load shall be
used and distributed linearly from its maximum down 15.1 ft. to 0. NCHRP 663
can be used as a reference for collision design. See MSE Wall Staff Bridge
Worksheets for additional information.

11.5.4 Drilled Shaft Walls

Drilled shafts walls, also known as secant or tangent pile walls, consist of drilled
shafts spaced along the wall alignment with an attached precast or CIP facing.
They are typically used in areas where excavation limits are restricted due to
ROW or there is an obstruction such as a building or utility. Micropiles can also
be used when access is limited for drill rigs. The micropiles can be a single row
or two rows with one battered to form an A-frame configuration.
11.5.5 Anchored Walls

Anchored walls (externally stabilized), although not routinely used in Colorado,
may be appropriate for relatively high cuts or sites with stringent deformation
criteria, particularly in situations where top-down construction is required.
Anchored wall systems use ground anchors (e.g., tiebacks bonded into the
ground, deadman anchors) to resist earth pressures acting on the wall. Anchored
systems may include soldier pile and lagging, sheet pile, and drilled shaft walls.
The design of anchored walls should follow AASHTO. AASHTO 11.8
11.5.6 Soil Nail Walls

Soil nail walls (internally stabilized) are frequently used as top-down, permanent AASHTO 11.9
retaining structures in Colorado. Soil nail walls are best suited to sites with
adequate “stand-up” time, i.e., the ability of the soil to stand unsupported during
wall construction.
The FHWA publication Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual (FHWA-NHI-14-007)

provides guidance for the design of soil nail walls and is the recommended
design manual for soil walls used on CDOT projects.
The Geotechnical Engineer shall be responsible for the entirety of the wall
design, except for structural components such as the permanent facing, or as
otherwise identified by the Geotechnical Engineer and shown in the Structure
Selection Report.
When soil nail walls extend past the existing bridge abutment, future widenings
need to be considered. To allow room for future pile installation, diamond
patterns shall not be used within the ultimate configuration of the bridge
(Figure 11-19).

Figure 11-19: Soil Nail Wall in Future Bridge Widening Area
Soil nail walls are typically designed with the assumption of dry soil conditions.
For dry conditions, the typical soil nail bond strength is 10 to 15 psi with a
maximum of 30 psi. However, for a high ground water table, spring water
seepage, or heavy storm water runoff conditions, bond strength is reduced
significantly. Without rigorous temporary drainage measures required during
construction, wet condition bond strength must be considered and designed for
by the Contractor’s design Engineer of Record.
11.5.7 Gravity Walls

Rigid retaining walls of concrete or masonry stone that derive their capacity
through the dead weight of their mass may be used for earth retention. Due
to increases in material costs, conventional types of these walls made from
concrete or stone are expensive. More affordable gravity walls, such as gabion
baskets, have become more prevalent and are easily constructible.
11.5.8 Landscape Walls
Landscape walls retain soil less than 4 ft. in height from the finished grade to
the top of the wall at any point along the length of the wall. Design calculations
are not required for this type of wall.

11.5.9 Load Combinations

Table 11-2 summarizes the load combinations used for wall design. Use AASHTO 3.4.1
Strength Ia and Extreme Event IIa to check sliding and overturning and to
minimize resisting loads and maximize overturning loads. Use Strength Ib and
Extreme Event IIb to check bearing and maximize loads for both overturning
and resisting.
Note that live load surcharge (LS) and horizontal earth load (EH) are not
included in the Extreme Event load cases for vehicle collision load (CT). It can
be assumed that the horizontal earth pressure is not activated due to the force
of the collision deflecting the wall away from the soil mass at the instant of
collision.
Use the service limit state for the crack control check.
Table 11-2: Load Factors for Retaining Wall Design

Combination γDC γEV γLS_V γLS_H γEH γCT Application
Strength Ia 0.90 1.00 – 1.75 1.50 – Sliding, Eccentricity
Strength Ib 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 – Bearing, Strength
Design
Strength IV 1.50 1.35 – – 1.50 – Bearing
Extreme IIa 0.90 1.00 – – – 1.00 Sliding, Eccentricity
Extreme IIb 1.25 1.35 – – – 1.00 Bearing
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – Wall Crack Control
11.5.10 Resistance Factors

Resistance factors shall be per AASHTO or as given in the Geotechnical Report. AASHTO 10.5 &
Resistance factors for sliding and bearing are given in AASHTO Table 11.5.6‑1. 11.5
Resistance factors for passive pressure resistance are given in AASHTO
Table 10.5.5.2.2-1. If an extreme event affects the wall, the resistance factors
shall be per AASHTO 11.5.8.
11.5.11 Collision with a Wall

AASHTO does not explicitly address how to design for collision load (CT) with
a wall or how the load is distributed. Conservatively, CT shall be applied at the
end of the wall unless the barrier does not extend to the end of the wall.
Figure 11-20 provides an example of the distribution. Assume that the horizontal
earth pressure is not activated due to the force of the collision deflecting the
wall away from the soil mass at the instant of collision.
For a Type 7 barrier, assume that the total lateral distribution will extend
horizontally for 3.5 ft. and then downward at 45° from the point of collision. The
length of distribution from impact force, Lt = 3.5 ft., for a TL4 rated barrier is
taken from AASHTO LRFD Table A13.2-1.

For collision with a Type 10 barrier (post and rail), distribute CT horizontally
between posts (3 maximum) and down from top of curb/wall to bottom of footing
at 45°. At the end of a wall, assume a horizontal distribution distance from the
edge distance to the first post plus one bay and then down at 45 percent.
Figure 11-20: Lateral Collision Distribution
11.5.12 Global and Compound Stability

The global stability and compound stability shall be per AASHTO and the
Geotechnical Design Manual. Global stability of the wall depends on the footing
width and embedment.
The project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate global stability. Minimum

factors of safety for global stability shall meet the requirements of the
Geotechnical Design Manual and AASHTO. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
specify the minimum requirements to achieve the specified factors of safety
(e.g., minimum reinforced zone length for MSE walls, minimum soil nail length,
and configuration for soil nail walls).
Compound stability of MSE and soil nail walls will depend on the reinforcement
type, length, and spacing. Therefore, the wall designer shall provide the required
information to the project Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the compound
stability (see Figure 11-21).

Figure 11-21: Global and Compound Failure Planes
11.5.13 Designer Responsibility for Walls

External stability addresses concerns with the stability of sliding masses defined AASHTO
by slip surfaces that pass outside the reinforced soil zone. The checks required 11.6.2.3
include global stability of the structure, determination of eccentricity limits,
sliding analysis, bearing capacity analysis of the foundation/supporting soils,
and settlement analysis. These checks shall be performed by the Engineer of
Record responsible for the design, whether that be the owner’s representative,
Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer, or Vendor. If the wall is a vendor
design, the vendor’s Independent Design Engineer is responsible for submitting
stamped calculations showing the external stability check for review.
Internal stability typically includes both pullout and rupture of the reinforcement.
Responsibility for this check includes wall system components, including facing
units, soil reinforcements, structural attachments, reinforcement connections
to the facing units, bearing pads, and joint covering filter fabrics. Design
responsibility shall fall on the engineer responsible for the design, whether that
be the owner’s representative, Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer, or
Vendor.

Global stability, compound stability, and deep seated failure conditions are
closely related to external stability checks. It can be defined as the overall
stability of the wall and surrounding slopes and structures. It requires the
analysis of the surrounding circular slip surfaces. See Section 11.5.12 of this
BDM for global stability requirements.
The Project Structural Engineer is responsible for collecting and approving wall
submittals, which can include, but are not limited to, stamped calculations, shop
drawings, etc.
11.5.14 Designer Responsibility for Using MSE Wall Worksheets

CDOT MSE wall worksheets contain details such as vertical slip joints, coping, AASHTO
leveling pad, end of wall treatment, waterproofing membrane with drainage, 11.6.5.6
and damage avoidance measures for improving wall and seismic performance.
These worksheet details are CDOT minimum requirements consistent with
MSE/GRS wall design criteria and policies. Internal, external, and compounded
stability are checked based on assumed soil reinforcement shown on the wall
worksheets. In addition to using the worksheets, the Project Structural Engineer
shall be responsible for site geometry, soil conditions, slope stability checks,
and construction sequencing. For a GRS wall with only one specific grade
of geotextile with a fixed spacing, the Contractor’s selected supplier is only
required to meet material certification and shop drawings are not required.
Alternate contracting methods may alter Designer responsibility on a project-

specific basis. For example, if a project requires a complete MSE design proposal
by a Contractor or appropriate Subcontractor, the Contractor is responsible for
all elements of design, including reinforcement grade and placing schedule, and
will provide in stamped shop drawings. The aforementioned damage avoidance
details still apply.
11.5.15 Designer Responsibility for Using Soil Nail Wall Worksheets

Soil nail walls can either be designed by an in-house or consultant designer in a
Design-Bid-Build situation or provided using more of a “Design Build” approach
where the Contractor will design the wall based on project requirements. The
soil nail worksheets provide generic details for construction as well a project
example set. CDOT Geotechnical will typically design in-house soil nail walls
in coordination with Staff Bridge. At a minimum, the Designer will provide the
required wall alignment and determine the required project requirements.

11.5.16 Seismic Design Requirements

Seismic analysis for retaining walls is not required unless they are supporting AASHTO
a bridge abutment or liquefaction that will affect the foundation performance 3.10.9.2,
is anticipated. Section 3.13 of this BDM provides additional information on 11.6.5.6, 4.7.4
seismic design requirements. Current Staff Bridge Worksheets for MSE Walls
use details for improved seismic performance, thus, if the worksheets are used,
AASHTO 11.10.7.4 can be waived.
11.6 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS

Backfill material behind abutments and retaining walls shall be well drained AASHTO 11.8.8,
and not allow water to collect. If this cannot be accomplished, the abutment 11.9.9, 11.10.8
and retaining walls should be designed for loads due to earth pressure plus
hydraulic pressure due to water in the backfill. Class 1 backfill can have up to
20 percent fines and thus may not be classified as free draining. Design a drain
system if using a Class 1 backfill.
If the wall or abutment includes conditions or areas that promote the trapping
or intrusion of water, such as low point on a sag curve or a drainage inlet,
the Designer shall create details to address the issues that may occur. The
approach slab drain details used shall allow movement of the abutment
while noting that the approach slab drain does not move. Add water sealers,
waterproofing membranes, and protection details to the plans.
11.7 SHORING
Shoring is generally not designed by the EOR, but shall be designated in the
plans and indicate which shoring areas will require an independent review.
Areas that typically need review are those areas that support the roadway or
could cause a safety issue.
11.8 REFERENCES
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Evaluation of Integral
Abutments Final Report. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-NJ-2005-025.
September.
FHWA. 2012. Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim

Implementation Guide. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT-11-026. June.
FHWA. 2015. Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual. FHWA Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-14-007. February.

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
Section 11: Abutment, Piers, and Retaining Walls

Appendix 11A - Worksheets for Earth Retaining Wall Type Selection

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS 11A-1
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subsection: 5.5

STAFF BRIDGE BRANCH Effective: October 1, 1991
BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL Supersedes: December 1, 1990
WORKSHEETS FOR EARTH RETAINING WALL TYPE SELECTION
NOTES ON USING WORKSHEETS
1. Factors that can be evaluated in percentage of wall height:

- Base dimension of spread footing.
- Embedded depth of wall element into firm ground.
2. Factors that can be described as ’large (high)’, ’medium (average)’,
or ’small (low)’:
Quantitative Measurement
- amount of excavation behind wall.
- required working space during construction.
- quantity of backfill material.
- effort of compaction and control.
- length of construction time.
- cost of maintenance.
- cost of increasing durability.
- labor usage.
- lateral movement of retained soil.
Sensitive Measurement:
- bearing capacity.
- differential settlement.
3. Factors that can be appraised with ’yes’, ’no’ or ’question
(insufficient information)’
- Front face battering.
- Trapezoidal wall back.
- Using marginal backfill material.
- Unstable slope.
- High water table/seepage.
- Facing as load carrying element.
- Active (minimal) lateral earth pressure condition.
- Construction dependant loads.
- Project scale.
- Noise/water pollution.
- Available standard designs.
- Facing cost.
- Durability.
4. Factors that can be approximated from recorded height:
- Maximum wall height.
- Economical wall height

October 1, 1991 Subsection No. 5.5 Page 2 of 5




BDM Section 11 - 20180101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BDM Section 11 - 20180101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BDM Section 11 - 20180101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS 11-1

11.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

11.2 CODE REQUIREMENTS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

For pre-tensioned or post-tensioned concrete bridges, use methods to increase

Figure 11-1: Integral Abutment on H-Piles

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

1. All abutment and wingwall concrete shall be Class D (Bridge).

5. Reinforcing steel shall be determined by design.

6. All reinforcing shall be epoxy coated or corrosion resistant.

7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs parallel to girders.

8. For integral abutments on drilled shafts, height of gap between top of

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

Figure 11-2: Integral Abutment on Drilled Shafts

11.3.2 Semi-integral Abutments

Semi-integral abutments are like integral abutments because both eliminate

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

When semi-integral abutments are used, intermediate shear blocks between

Figure 11-3: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 1)

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

1. All abutment and wingwall concrete shall be Class D (Bridge).

5. Reinforcing steel shall be determined by design.

6. All reinforcing shall be epoxy coated or corrosion resistant.

7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs parallel to girders.

8. Provide lateral restraint with anchor bolts and/or intermediate or end

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

Figure 11-4: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 2)

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

Figure 11-5: Seat Type Abutment

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

1. All abutment and wingwall concrete shall be Class D (Bridge).

2. Reinforcing steel shall be determined by design.

3. All reinforcing shall be epoxy coated or corrosion resistant.

4. Apply an epoxy protective coating to the exposed portion of backwall, top

6. To decrease a lateral load pressure on backface of abutment, a woven

11.3.4 Tall Wall Abutments

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

Figure 11-6: Tall Wall Abutment

11.3.5 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Abutments

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

(GRS-IBS) is a unique application of GRS bridge abutments. Compared to a

The primary advantage of GRS abutments is that differential settlement between

Other potential advantages of GRS compared to conventional bridges supported

As discussed in the following subsections, GRS is not appropriate for sites

11.3.5.1 Structure Selection Requirements

a. Single or continuous span bridges where long-term foundation

11.3.5.2 Design Criteria

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

Additional geotechnical borings may be required to adequately characterize

The design of GRS abutments is an iterative procedure requiring coordination

Settlement of GRS abutments includes short-term settlement (occurring during

Consider the estimated short- and long-term settlement when establishing

Uncertainty in the calculation and estimation of settlement values can contribute

CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

be compensated for during construction. Post-construction settlement could

11.3.5.4 Approach Slabs and Pre-camber