National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25416.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25416.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25416.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25416.
×
Page R4

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 260: Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Jorge G. Zornberg Amr M. Morsy Behdad Mofarraj Kouchaki The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas Barry Christopher Independent Consultant St. Augustine, Florida Dov Leshchinsky ADAMA Engineering, Inc. Portland, Oregon Jie Han University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Burak F. Tanyu Fitsum T. Gebremariam George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia Panpan Shen Tongji University Shanghai, China Yan Jiang Terracon Savannah, Georgia Chapter 8 of Final Report for NCHRP Project 24-41 Submitted March 2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 260 Christoper J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Camille Crichton-Sumners, Senior Program Officer Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Associate Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Senior Editor Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 24-41 PANEL Area Twenty-Four: Field of Soils and Geology— Area of Mechanics and Foundations Ryan R. Berg, President/Consultant, Woodbury, MN (Chair) James B. "Jim" Higbee, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA Shunyi Chris Chen, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC Lawrence E. Jones, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL Kristin L. Langer, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA Blake E. Nelson, Minnesota DOT, Maplewood, MN L. David Suits, North American Geosynthetics Society, Albany, NY Jennifer E. Nicks, FHWA Liaison

iv CONTENTS Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Overview of Current Design Procedures for Geosynthetic‐reinforced Soil Structures with Closely‐spaced Reinforcement ................................................................... 10 2.1. Background on current design procedures ........................................................................ 10 2.2. Comparison of current design procedures ......................................................................... 11 3. Proposed Revisions to Incorporate Sv into Current AASHTO Design Procedures ................. 14 3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.2. Effect of Sv on Tmax magnitude and distribution .............................................................. 17 3.3. Effect of Sv on T0 magnitude and distribution ................................................................... 21 3.4. Effect of Sv on stress distribution and design of bearing seats .......................................... 22 3.5. Effect of Sv on vertical and lateral deformations ............................................................... 24 3.6. Effect of Sv on bump at the end of the bridge ................................................................... 26 4. Research Basis Supporting the Proposed Revisions to Incorporate Sv into Design Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.1. Boundary for composite behavior of geosynthetic‐reinforced soil structures .................. 28 4.2. Effect of Sv on Tmax magnitude and distribution .............................................................. 31 4.2.1. Experimental research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations ...... 31 4.2.2. Field research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations .................... 32 4.2.3. Numerical simulation outcomes that support the proposed recommendations ........ 35 4.2.4. Limit equilibrium research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations 35 4.3. Effect of Sv on T0 magnitude and distribution ................................................................... 36 4.3.1. Field research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations .................... 37 4.3.2. Numerical simulation outcomes that support the proposed recommendations ........ 42 4.4. Effect of Sv on stress distribution and design of bearing seats .......................................... 45 4.4.1. Field research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations .................... 45 4.4.2. Numerical simulation outcomes that support the proposed recommendations ........ 48 4.5. Effect of Sv on vertical and lateral deformations ............................................................... 50 4.6. Effect of Sv on bump at the end of the bridge ................................................................... 56 4.6.1. Field research outcomes that support the proposed recommendations .................... 56 4.6.2. Numerical simulation outcomes that support the proposed recommendations ........ 58 5. References ................................................................................................................................. 61

Next: Summary »
Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 260: Proposed Refinements to Design Procedures for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications explores the effect of adopting a closely‐spaced reinforcement layout in geosynthetic‐reinforced soil structures.

While research since the early 1980s has identified the beneficial effect of closely‐spaced reinforcement in reinforced soil structures, such improvement in performance is not accounted for in the simplified methodologies established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Considering the effect of closely‐spaced reinforcement may be particularly relevant in critical structures, such as load‐carrying geosynthetic‐reinforced MSE (GMSE) bridge abutments, which eliminate the use of deep foundations to support the bridge loads. In fact, the adoption of closely‐spaced reinforcement was identified as being particularly relevant for these type of structures, leading to specific design guidelines developed by FHWA for structures that became identified as Geosynthetic‐Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System, or GRS‐IBS.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!