A synthesis of case histories on GRS bridge-supporting structures with flexible facing

Lee, Kevin Zeh-Zon; Wu, Jonathan T. H.

doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.03.002

Cited by 78 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various research methods have been applied in the study of reinforced-soil walls and slopes in recent years, including studies of full-scale structures (Collin, 2001;Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, 2005;Lee and Wu, 2004;Yoo, 2004;Yoo and Jung, 2004;Won and Kim, 2007), reduced-scale models (Latha and Krishna, 2008;ElEmam and Bathurst, 2007;Nova-Roessig and Sitar, 1999;Chen et al, 2007) and numerical analysis (Al-Hattamleh and Muhunthan, 2006;Rowe and Skinner, 2001;Skinner and Rowe, 2005;Hatami and Bathurst, 2000;. Additionally, analytical models such as the homogenized analytical concept (Chen et al, 2000), limit analysis (Porbaha et al, 2000), limit equilibrium (Baker and Klein, 2004a,b;Nouri et al, 2006Nouri et al, , 2008Shekarian et al, 2008;Reddy et al, 2008) and the characteristics method (Jahanandish and Keshavarz, 2005) have been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls

Sabermahani

Ghalandarzadeh

Fakher

2009

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls

Sabermahani

Ghalandarzadeh

Fakher

2009

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Post-construction monitoring has indicated very good in-service performance for this MSE bridge abutment (Abu-Hejleh et al 2002). Lee and Wu (2004) reported case studies of MSE abutments including in-service structures and field experiments, and all of which showed excellent performance. Barrett et al (2013) also presented five successful case studies of MSE abutments in the private sector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Numerical Simulations for Response of MSE Wall-Supported Bridge Abutments to Vertical Load

Zheng

Fox²,

Shing

2014

Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls have been proposed as support for bridge abutments on shallow foundations due to significant cost savings over conventional pile-supported designs. This paper presents new research on numerical modeling of a realistic MSE wall-supported bridge abutment using the finite difference program FLAC-2D. MSE abutments are typically subjected to much larger loads from bridge superstructures than conventional MSE walls. An MSE bridge abutment with a flexible wall facing is a complex system that includes granular backfill, reinforcement, concrete facing blocks, and the shallow foundation for the abutment structure. In the numerical simulations, soil-block, block-block, and soil-abutment interactions were simulated using interface elements and soil-geogrid interactions were simulated using cable elements. The MSE abutment is subjected to a vertical bridge load of 200 kPa. Results are presented for static conditions and include lower wall facing displacements, abutment structure settlements, maximum tensile forces in the reinforcement, lateral earth pressures, and vertical stresses under the abutment structure and at the soil foundation level. The numerical results are discussed with regard to practical field applications. 493Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics GSP 238

show abstract

“…Although the last few years there has been research related to the use of geosynthetics on reinforced soil bridge abutments (Lee and Wu, 2004;Skinner and Rowe, 2005), most of the existing cases around the world use inextensible reinforcement elements, i.e. steel strips or steel grids (Elias et al, 2001).…”

Section: Reinforcement Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Abutments for Bridge Support

Zevgolis¹,

Bourdeau²

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUsing MSE structures as direct bridge abutments would be a significant simplification in the design and construction of current bridge abutment systems and would lead to faster construction of highway bridge infrastructures. Additionally, it would result in construction cost savings due to elimination of deep foundations. This solution would also contribute to better compatibility of deformation between the components of bridge abutment systems, thus minimize the effects of differential settlements and the undesirable "bump" at bridge / embankment transitions. Cost savings in maintenance and retrofitting would also result. The objective of this study was to investigate on the possible use of MSE bridge abutments as direct support of bridges on Indiana highways and to lead to drafting guidelines for INDOT engineers to decide in which cases such a solution would be applicable. The study was composed of two major parts. First, analysis was performed based on conventional methods of design in order to assess the performance of MSE bridge abutments with respect to external and internal stability. Consequently, based on the obtained results, finite element analysis was performed in order to investigate deformation issues. FindingsMSE walls have been successfully used as direct bridge abutments for more than thirty years. Numerous such structures exist in the USA and around the world. Design methods are readily available through AASHTO and FHWA guidelines. In principle, these methods are similar with the design methods for conventional MSE walls. These are the result of soil classical plasticity theories (i.e. Coulomb's and Rankine's) combined with empirical knowledge. The methods are based on limit equilibrium principles and address ultimate limits of resistance with respect to external and internal stability. In terms of external stability, safety must be verified with respect to overturning around the toe, sliding on the base, and bearing capacity of the foundation soil. In terms of internal stability, safety must be verified with respect to tensile and pull out failure of the reinforcement elements. The bridge concentrated loads naturally increase the magnitude and location of tensile stresses within the MSE mass. The primary advantage of MSE walls compared to conventional reinforced concrete walls is their ability to withstand differential settlements without structural distress. Nevertheless, in case of MSE bridge abutments, settlements have to be examined carefully on a case by case basis, in order to determine their effect on the superstructure. Uniform settlements are usually of little concern (unless they are excessively large), but differential settlements can cause serious problems, even in small amounts. Therefore, AASHTO provides criteria for allowable differential settlements with respect to longitudinal angular distortion, i.e. the ratio of differential settlements over the bridge span length. Another advantage of abutments directly founded on MSE walls, is that differential movements betwee...

show abstract

A synthesis of case histories on GRS bridge-supporting structures with flexible facing

Cited by 78 publications

References 2 publications

Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls

Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls

Numerical Simulations for Response of MSE Wall-Supported Bridge Abutments to Vertical Load

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Abutments for Bridge Support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About