Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Passive Force–Displacement Behaviour of GRS Bridge Abutments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many bridge abutments suffered severe damages due to pounding of superstructure elements of the bridge during seismic excitation. Collision of the girder is resisted by passive pressures mobilised in the backfill soils. Seismic load on the bridge structure causes the bridge abutments to undergo lateral translation (Δ) and rotation. The present study focuses on the evaluation of passive force (Pp) developed in the reinforced backfills of the geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) bridge abutments. The GRS abutments of nine configurations with three different geogrid spacing and three different geogrid lengths are modelled using finite element (FE) approach under lateral push. Hypoplastic soil constitutive model with inter-granular strain concept is used to model the soil behaviour. User material subroutine, VUMAT is developed to simulate the soil behaviour in Abaqus. The maximum passive resistance (Pp,ult) increases by 12% in the GRS abutments with closer geogrid spacing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

C u :

Uniformity coefficient

d 50 :

Mean grain size (m)

EX:

Experiment

e c0 :

Maximum void ratio

e d0 :

Minimum void ratio

e i :

Initial void ratio

e i0 :

Maximum possible void ratio at zero pressure and is equal to 1.1ec0

h :

Height of the abutment wall (m)

h s :

Granular hardness

K 50 :

Average abutment stiffness (MN/m/m)

L :

Length of the geogrid reinforcement (m)

M w :

Moment magnitude

n :

An exponent

P a :

Active lateral thrust on the facing (kN/m)

PGV:

Peak ground velocity

P p :

Lateral passive force (kN/m)

P p,ult :

Maximum passive resistance (kN/m)

s :

Spacing of geogrid reinforcement (m)

α :

An exponent

γ :

Unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

Δ :

Lateral displacement of the abutment wall (m)

Δ 50 :

Lateral displacement of the abutment wall at Pp,ult/2 (m)

Δ max :

Lateral displacement of the abutment wall at Pp,ult (m)

ε a :

Axial strain

σ c :

Triaxial cell pressure (kN/m2)

σ d :

Deviatoric stress (kN/m2)

σ h :

Lateral earth pressure (kN/m2)

φ c :

Critical friction angle

References

  1. Setyowulan D, Yamao T, Yamamoto K, Hamamoto T (2016) Investigation of seismic response on girder bridges: the effect of displacement restriction and wing wall types. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 218:104–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawashima K, Takahashi Y, Ge H, Wu Z, Zhang J (2009) Reconnaissance report on damage of bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, Earthquake. J Earthq Eng 13:965–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wieser JD, Maragakis E, Buckle IG, Zaghi AE (2012) Experimental evaluation of seismic pounding at seat type abutments of horizontally curved bridges, In: Proceedings of fifteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, pp 1–10

  4. Malhotra PK, Huang MJ, Shakal AF (1995) Seismic interaction at separation joints of an instrumented concrete bridge. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:1055–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hao H, Bi K, Chouw N, Ren W (2013) State-of-the-art review on seismic induced pounding response of bridge structures. J Earthq Tsunami 7:1350019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chouw N, Hao H, Su H (2006) Multi-sided pounding response of bridge structures with non-linear bearings to spatially varying ground excitation. Adv Struct Eng 9:55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. AASHTO (2014) Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wu JTH, Lee KZZ, Pham T (2006) Allowable bearing pressure of bridge sills on GRS abutments with flexible facing. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:836–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu JTH, Lee KZZ, Helwany SB, Ketchart K (2006) Design and construction guidelines for GRS bridge abutment with a flexible facing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ketchart K, Wu JTH (1997) Loading test of GRS bridge pier and abutment in Denver, Colorado. Department of Transportation, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zheng Y, Fox PJ (2016) Numerical investigation of geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments under static loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142:04016004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zheng Y, Fox PJ (2017) Numerical investigation of the geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system under static loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143:04017008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ardah A, Abu-Farsakh M, Voyiadjis G (2017) Numerical evaluation of the performance of a geosynthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) under different loading conditions. Geotext Geomembr 45:558–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fredrickson (2015) Large-scale testing of passive force behavior for skewed bridge abutments with gravel and geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) Backfills. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Utah

  15. Fredrickson A, Rollins KM, Nicks J (2017) Passive force-deflection behaviour of geosynthetic-reinforced soil backfill based on large-scale tests. Geotechn Front 2017 GSP 278:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bozorgzadeh A (2007) Effect of structure backfill on stiffness and capacity of bridge abutments. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego

  17. Lemnitzer A, Ahlberg ER, Nigbor RL, Shamsabadi A, Wallace JW, Stewart JP (2009) Lateral performance of full-scale bridge abutment wall with granular backfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135:506–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson PR (2009) Large scale passive force-displacement and dynamic earth pressure experiments and simulations. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego

  19. Wilson P, Elgamal A (2010) Large-scale passive earth pressure load-displacement tests and numerical simulation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:1634–1643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rollins KM, Jessee SJ (2013) Passive force-deflection plots for skewed abutments. J Bridge Eng 18:1086–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duncan JM, Mokwa RL (2001) Passive earth pressures: theories and tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:248–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M (2007) Nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge structure interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:707–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shamsabadi A, Khalili-Tehrani P, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E (2010) Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills. J Bridge Eng 15:302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caltrans (2013) Seismic design criteria version 1.7. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  25. Niemunis A, Herle I (1997) Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range. Mech Cohes Frict Mater 2:279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bauer E, Wu W (1993) A hypoplastic model for granular soils under cyclic loading. In: Kolymbas D (ed) Modern approaches to plasticity. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  27. von Wolffersdorff PA (1996) A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a predefined limit state surface. Mech Cohes Frict Mater 1:251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Herle I, Gudehus G (1999) Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive model from properties of grain assemblies. Mech Cohes Frict Mater 4:461–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolymbas D (2000) Introduction to hypoplasticity. AA Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  30. Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sand soils. Soils Found 36:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stewart JP, Taciroglu E, Wallace JW, Ahlberg ER, Lemnitzer A, Rha C, Tehrani P, Keowen S, Nigbor RL, Salamanca A (2007) Full scale cyclic testing of foundation support systems for highway bridges—part II: abutment backwalls. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ramalakshmi M (2018) Static, cyclic and seismic response analyses of GRS bridge abutments. Ph.D Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

  33. Jain SK, Lettis B, Murty CVR, Bardet J-P (2002) Bhuj, India earthquake of January 26, 2001. Supplement A to volume 18 of earthquake spectra. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Oakland, p 398

    Google Scholar 

  34. FHWA (2011) Postearthquake reconnaissance report on transportation infrastructure impact of the February 27, 2010, offshore maule earthquake in Chile. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  35. Massumi A, Mohammadi R (2016) Structural redundancy of 3D RC frames under seismic excitations. Struct Eng Mech 59:15–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu Y-M, Teng T-L, Shin T-C, Hsiao N-C (2003) Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:386–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68:199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ling-kun C, Li-zhong J, Wei G, Wen-shuo L, Zhi-ping Z, Ge-wei C (2014) The seismic response of high-speed railway bridges subjected to near-fault forward directivity ground motions using a vehicle-track-bridge element. Shock Vib. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/985602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. El-Emam MM, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (2004) Numerical modeling of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to base acceleration. In: Proceedings of thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper no. 2621, Vancouver, BC

  40. Ling HI, Liu H, Kaliakin VN, Leshchinsky D (2004) Analyzing dynamic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. J Eng Mech 130:911–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu H, Ling HI (2012) Seismic responses of reinforced soil retaining walls and the strain softening of backfill soils. Int J Geomech 12:351–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Stewart JP, Taciroglu E, Wallace JW, Lemnitzer A, Hilson CH, Nojoumi A, Keowen S, Nigbor RL, Salamanca A (2011) Nonlinear load-deflection behavior of abutment backwalls with varying height and soil density. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Geomechanics Laboratory, Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, 600036, India

    M. Ramalakshmi

  2. Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, 600036, India

    G. R. Dodagoudar

Authors
  1. M. Ramalakshmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. R. Dodagoudar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Ramalakshmi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramalakshmi, M., Dodagoudar, G.R. Passive Force–Displacement Behaviour of GRS Bridge Abutments. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 4, 28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0145-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0145-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation