Design and Construction Guidelines for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments with a Flexible Facing (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-7
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
The following were observed about the performance, design, and construction of the GRS bridge-supporting structures: • GRS bridge abutments with a flexible facing are a viable alternative to conventional bridge abutments. All six in-service GRS abutments performed satisfactorily under service loads.
|
From page 2... ...
Highlights of the measured performance and observed behavior follow. Load-Carrying Capacity and Ductility • As the loading was being terminated, 814 kPa applied pressure for the Amoco test section and 414 kPa for the Mirafi test section, the Mirafi test section had approached a bearing failure condition while the Amoco test section appeared to 2
|
From page 3... ...
• The 2V:1H pyramidal distribution method suggested by the NHI manual yielded approximately the "average" measured contact pressure, although the calculated pressures were somewhat higher than the measured average values at higher applied pressures. Observed Behavior • A tension crack was observed on the wall crest in both load test sections.
|
From page 4... ...
The performance of an abutment with φ 34° and reinforcement spacing 0.2 m was very similar to an abutment with φ 37° and reinforcement spacing 0.4 m, suggesting that more closely spaced reinforcement had an effect similar to denser fill compaction. • Effect of reinforcement stiffness: For a soil with φ 34° and reinforcement spacing 0.2 m, the sill settlement decreased 43 percent at 200 kPa as the reinforcement stiffness increased from 530 kN/m to 5,300 kN/m.
|
From page 5... ...
• Over a rigid foundation, the abutments tend to have significantly smaller sill settlements, smaller maximum lateral wall displacements, smaller sill lateral movements, and smaller sill rotations (except for isolated sills) than the abutments situated over a medium sand foundation.
|
From page 6... ...
of a GRS abutment is determined as a function of the friction angle of the fill, reinforcement vertical spacing, sill width, and sill type (isolated sill or integrated sill)
|
From page 7... ...
the applied pressure does not exceed the recommended design pressures in the recommended design method. Recommended Construction Guidelines The recommended construction guidelines were established based on the guidelines for segmental GRS walls as provided by various agencies (including AASHTO, NCMA, FHWA, CTI, SAGP, and JR)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.