TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Seismic Design of Bridge Abutments

Thursday, September 28, 2017

2:00-4:00PM ET
The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and requirements of
the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program. Credit earned on
completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A certificate of completion
will be issued to participants that have registered and attended the entire session.
As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an
approval or endorsement by RCEP.
Purpose
Discuss the latest research about theories on computing the ultimate
passive force for abutment deflection.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:
• Understand the differences between available methods for computing
ultimate passive force and correctly compute ultimate passive force for
four different materials, including: dense backfills, loose backfills,
flowable fills/cellular concrete, and geofoam inclusions
• Compute and adjust passive force for several characteristics, including:
skew angle of the abutment, and cyclic loading
• Understand how to select soil parameters for lateral pile analysis of
abutment piles
• Use p-multipliers to reduce lateral pile resistance due to group
interaction and piles near MSE walls
Seismic Design of Bridge Abutments

Kyle Rollins
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University
Ralph Rollins, performed geotechnical
investigations for over 5000 structures

I took Soil Mechanics class from my Father

Rachel Rollins was Civil Engineering student

Rachel took Soil Mechanics class from her Father

Granddaughter, Ella, shows early
interest in soil behavior…
Seismic Design of Bridge Abutments

Kyle Rollins
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University
Lateral Resistance of Bridge Abutments

 Passive force-displacement
against abutment

 Lateral resistance of piles

near MSE wall faces

L
 Passive Force on Bridge Abutments

 Passive force contributes to resistance

 Using smaller passive force (lower Kp)
may be conservative
 Passive Force on Bridge Abutments

Liquefaction

 Passive force contributes to load

 Using smaller passive force (lower Kp) is
unconservative
Buckledcaption
Railroad Bridge Caused by Lateral Spread During the
1964 Alaska Earthquake
Summary of Passive Force Methods
 Rankine
 Coloumb
 Log Spiral
 Caltrans
 Rankine Method
Pult= 0.5 γH2 Kp
45-ϕ/2
Kp = tan2(45+ϕ/2)
Pult
Planar Shear
Surface

Advantages Limitations
• Simplicity • Planar Shear Surface
• Conservative • Neglects wall friction (δ)
Only 30% to 50% of correct value
 Coulomb Method
Pult= 0.5 γH2 Kp
cos2ϕ
Pult Kp =
δ cosδ 1- sin(ϕ+δ)sin ϕ 2
Planar Shear cosδ
Surface

Advantages Limitations
• Accounts for wall • Planar Shear Surface
friction (δ) • Yields Very High Pult
• Complex Geometries for δ > 0.4φ
Over 100% higher than correct value
Nature is often non-linear!

Nature likes log spirals!

Log Spiral Method

Rankine zone
Pult Pult = 0.5 γH2 Kp
δ
Prandl zone

Log spiral Surface

Advantages Limitations
• Accounts for wall • More Complicated
friction and shear • Graphical or
shape numerical solution
 Log Spiral Passive Force
Pp = 0.5γH2 Kp
ϕ = Soil friction angle
δ = wall friction angle
β=backfill slope angle
H= height of back wall
Kp=passive pressure
coefficient
Kp can come from chart,
Excel spreadsheet PYCAP
 Wall Friction Angle, δ

Noted in AASHTO
LRFD (2010)

Duncan and Mokwa

(2001)
 Caltrans Method
5 ksf
h
Pult = Ae × 5ksf × ( kips )
5.5 ft Based on field 5.5
test with silty clay

Advantages Limitations
• Easy to apply • Assumes uniform
pressure distribution
• Neglects variable soil
strength parameters
Bi-Linear Passive Force-Deflection Curve
(Caltrans, 2010)
Initial resistance, kabut = (50 kip/in)*(H/5.5 ft)*w

Ultimate resistance, Pult = (5.0 ksf)(H/5.5 ft)Awall

Force

Pult
kabut Pult and kabut based on load
tests at BYU, UC-Davis and
UCLA

Deflection
 19

AASHTO Design Method

• Bi-linear relationship
• Failure occurs at
PP

Passive Force
0.01-0.05H
• Peak passive force
obtained using log
spiral method

0.01H-0.05H
Hyperbolic Load-Deflection Curve
(Duncan and Mokwa, 2001 Shamsabadi et al 2006)

Pult based on log-

spiral method

P-y curve based on:

• Soil Type
• Soil density/stiffness
• Cap geometry
“One good test is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”

Werner Von Braun

Designer of Saturn V Moon Rocket
Healthy Skepticism about Tests
 A theory is something nobody believes,
except the person who proposed it.
 An experiment (test) is something
everybody believes, except the person who
performed it
--Albert Einstein
 Pile Caps/Abutments

3.67
Ft

12 -Steel Pipe
Piles (12.75”
OD)
Field Test Methodology
Pile Cap Deflection [cm]
0 2 4 6 8
1,200
5,000
1,000 Total Load
Longitudinal Force [kips]

Longitudinal Force [kN]

Baseline Resistance 4,000
800
Lateral Backfill
Resistance 3,000
600

2,000
400

200 1,000

0 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Pile Cap Deflection [in]
 Development of Passive Resistance
1500 1500
Clean Sand Fine Gravel
Clean Fine
∆/Hmax = 0.034 ∆/Hmax = 0.030
Sand Gravel

Passive force (kN)

Passive force (kN)

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal deflection at load point (mm) Horizontal deflection at load point (mm)

2500 2500

CoarseCoarse
GravelGravel Silty Silty Sand
∆/Hmax = 0.035
2000 2000
“Backbone” Sand
∆/Hmax = 0.052
Passive force (kN)
Passive force (kN)

1500 1500
Curve

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal deflection at load point (mm) Horizontal deflection at load point (mm)
Failure Surface Geometry
 Failure Surface Geometry
Distance from Cap Face on Line Parallel to Direction of Push [m]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1.0 -0.30

Elevation Below Top of Cap [m]

Elevation Below Top of Cap [ft]

0.0
0.20
1.0
α
2.0
0.70
3.0

4.0 Upper Shear Plane 1.20

Lower Shear Plane
5.0
Heave 1.70
6.0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from Cap Face on Line Parallel to Direction of Push [ft]
Comparison of Failure Geometries
Rankine Failure
Geometry
Ep

Log-Spiral Failure
Geometry
Surface of Sliding Comparisons
Log spiral theory
5
Estimated from field data φ = 40°
φ = 39° δ = 30°
Distance in front of pile cap (m)

δ = 30° c = 7.2 kPa

4 φ = 34° c = 0 kPa
φ = 27° δ = 26° 1
δ = 20° c = 3.8 kPa
3 c = 27.3 kPa

0
Silty Sand Fine Gravel Clean Sand Coarse Gravel
 Measured and Predicted
Peak Passive Force
Total passive force (kN)
Method Clean Sand Fine Gravel Coarse Gravel Silty Sand
Measured 1090 774 1997 1428
Caltrans 914 914 914 914
1577 1149 3464 1575
Coulomb
(1577) (824) (2224) (351)
Log spiral
numerical 922 817 1688 1210
solution
357 405 719 804
Rankine
(357) (300) (474) (194)
Numbers in (parenthesis) neglect cohesion component
 Log Spiral Passive Force-Example
Pp = 0.5γH2 Kp
Sandy Gravel
γ=135 pcf 13.3
ϕ = 40º
δ = 0.70ϕ = 0.7(40º)=28º
H= 6 ft

Kp = 13.3
Pp = 0.5(135)(6)2 (13.3)=32.3 k/ft
PpH = Pp cosδ =32.3 cos(28º)
PpH = 28.5 k/ft
 3D Geometry Effects

Shear Zone
Load Pile Cap
B Be

Plan View

 Shear zones extend beyond the edge of pile

cap/abutment
 Increases the effective width of the abutment
Equations for 3D Shear Effect
Pp = Ep B R3D (Duncan and Mokwa, 2001)
where Ep is passive force/width, B is width

Ro = Kp – Ka
Equations for 3D Shear Effect
Pp = Ep B R3D (Duncan and Mokwa, 2001)
where Ep is passive force/width, B is width

Ro = Kp – Ka
Influence of Relative Compaction
400
Dense Silty Sand
350 (98%)
Loose Silty Sand
300 (88%) Dr = 90%
Passive Force (kips)

250

200

150

100
Dr = 40-50%

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Deflection (inches)
 Failure Planes & Heave Profiles
CLEAN SAND
Densely Compacted Loosely Compacted
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0.00

2 2.00

4 4.00

Distance (ft)
6.00
Distance (ft)

8 8.00 Vertical Displacements magnified by 10

Vertical Displacements magnified by 10
Log Spiral
10 Log Spiral 10.00
Wall
Wall
12
Dr = 90% Ground Surface
Median Heave Profile
12.00
Dr = 40-50% Ground Surface
Median Heave Profile
14.00
14

 Shape of failure surfaces appear to reflect mobilization of wall

friction
 Densely compacted backfill has log-spiral failure surface
 Loosely compacted backfill has planar (i.e., Rankine) failure
surface
 Summary
 Passive Pressure for non-skewed abutments (Maroney (1995),
Duncan and Mokwa (2001), Rollins and Sparks (2002), Rollins and
Cole (2006), Lemnitzer et al (2009)

PP

 Passive force best estimated using log-spiral method

 Peak passive force mobilized at displacement of 0.03H to 0.05H
 Hyperbolic curve best represents passive force-displacement curve
 Skewed Bridge Abutment Overview
 ≈ 40% of 600,000 bridges in US are skewed
 Current design codes do not consider any
effect of skew on passive force
 Observations of poor performance of skewed
bridges

Shamsabadi et al. 2006

 Earthquake Damage to Skewed Bridges
(Paine, Chile)
Top Bridge Top Bridge
Bottom Bridge
Top Bridge

Bridge decks have rotated and

bridge was demolished

Bottom Bridge Bridge

Bridge deck was offset
remained and was
in service after
eventually demolished
the earthquake
Damage rate for skewed bridges was twice that of
non-skewed bridges (Toro et al 2013)
Interaction of Forces on Bridge Abutment

PL

Deck Length, L
Skew Angle, θ
Numerical Analysis of Skewed Abutments

23 m (75 ft) wide abutment with 2.4 m (8 ft) high backwall

(5th NSC, Shamsabadi et al., 2006)
Results of Numerical Analysis

(5th NSC, Shamsabadi et al., 2006)

Testing Program
 Variations in Wingwall Geometry

Transverse Wingwalls Parallel Wingwalls MSE Wingwalls

 Variations in Backfill Materials

• Sand
• Gravel
• Geosynthetically Reinforced Soil (GRS)
Initial Laboratory Testing
Test Layout
Plan view:

No Skew
1.22 m (4 ft)

Elevation view:

0.6 m (2 ft)
Test Procedure
Plan view:

Elevation view:
Test “Abutment”

15°
Test “Abutment”

30°
Test “Abutment”

45°

Load measurements:
Displacement: 60 mm 2.5” (0.10H) • Longitudinal
• Vertical
• Transverse
Backfill Soil Properties
 Gradation and Strength

Property Value
Classification
SP or A-1-b
Cu 3.7

Cc 0.7

Rc 98%
γ 17.8 kN/m3
ϕ 46º
δ 33.2º
Passive Force-Displacement Curves
Reduction Factor for Skew Effects

Rskew= PP(skew)/Pp (No-skew)

where Rskew is a function of skew angle, and wall width is
equal to non-skewed (projected) width.

Rskew= 8x10-5θ – 0.018 θ + 1.0

(ASCE, J. of Bridge Engrg., Rollins and Jessee 2013)

Normalized Passive Force vs Skew, θ

(ASCE, J. of Bridge Engrg., Rollins and Jessee 2013)

Large Scale Field Testing
Field Test Setup - Plan View
4 ft Dia.
Bored Pile
Sheet Pile Wall Section
AZ-18

2 – 2500 kN Actuators 24 ft

22 ft

11 ft wide x 5.5 ft high

Pile Cap Transverse Wingwalls
2 x 4 ft Reinforced
12.75 in Dia. Concrete blocks
Steel Pipe Piles
Field Test Setup Elevation View
4 ft Dia.
Bored Pile
Sheet Pile Wall 11 ft wide x 5.5 ft high x 15 ft long
Section AZ-18 Pile Cap

1.8m
6.4m

2 – 600 kip Actuators 12.75 in Dia.

Steel Pipe Piles
Sand backfill properties

 Poorly graded sand (SP/A-1-b)

 96% relative compaction
 ϕ = 41°
 c = 5 kPa (100 lbs/ft2)
 γmax = 17.5 kN/m3 (111.5 lbs/ft3)
No Skew - 0° Test Setup

Sand Hydraulic
Concrete Simulated
Backfill Actuators
Wingwall Abutment
15° Skew Test Setup
30° Skew Test Setup
45° Skew Test Setup
 Heave Geometry at Test Completion
0º Skew 45º Skew

Test completed at 3.21 in Test completed at 3.43 in

(81.6 mm) of displacement (87.2 mm) of displacement
 64

Surface Failure Geometry (30° Skew)

 Passive Force vs. Displacement
Pile Cap Deflection [cm]
0 2 4 6 8 10
600

0.05H
0.03H

0.04H
0.02H
2,500
0° Skew
500
15° Skew
2,000
Passive Force [kips]

Passive Force [kN]

30° Skew
400 45° Skew
1,500
300
1,000
200

100 500

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pile Cap Deflection [in]
Passive Force Reduction Factor vs. Skew
1
0.9
Lab Tests
0.8 Numerical Analysis
Reduction Factor, Rskew

0.7 Field Tests (This Study)

0.6 Proposed Reduction Line
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Rskew = 8x10-05θ2 - 0.018θ + 1
0.1 R² = 0.98

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Skew Angle, θ [degrees]
Shear force vs. transverse displacement
Transverse Displacement [mm]
7.5 6.25 5.0 3.75 2.5 1.25
200
180
Applied Shear Force [kip]

160
140
120
100
80
60 45º skew
40 30° skew
20 15° skew
0
-0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
Transverse Displacement [in]
Abutment with MSE Wingwalls
Test Setup for MSE Wingwall Tests

15°
30°
Skew
Skew
Welded Wire Grid Reinforcement (SSL)
No Skew - 0° Test Setup
12 ft x 5 ft wall panels
15º Skew Test with MSE Wingwalls
Field Test with 30º Skew & MSE Walls
 Distance From Pile Cap (ft)
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
3.0
0.24 0.83

Displacement (in)
2.5
1 to 1.2 in.

MSE Wingwall
1.72 2.73
2.0
1.5 Displacement 3.18

1.0
0.5
0.0
0º Skew

3.35 m

0.0
0.5
Displacement (in)
MSE Wingwall

1.0
1.5 1 to 1.2 in. 0.24 0.83
2.0
Displacement 1.72
3.18
2.73
2.5
3.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Distance From Pile Cap (ft)
 0.25 in.
Displacement
45º Skew

1.5-1.8 in.
Displacement
 Passive Force-Displacement curves
Pile Cap Displacement, Δ [cm]
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
700
3,000

0.04H
0.01H

0.02H

0.03H

0.05H
600
2,500
0 Degree Skew
Passive Force [kips]

Passive Force [kN]

500 30 Degree Skew
2,000
15 Degree Skew
400
45 Degree Skew
1,500
300
1,000
200

100 500

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Backwall Displacement, Δ [in]
Passive Force Reduction Factor vs. Skew
1
0.9
Lab Tests
0.8 Numerical Analysis
Reduction Factor, Rskew

0.7 Field Tests (This Study)

0.6 Proposed Reduction Line

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Rskew = 8x10-05θ2 - 0.018θ + 1
0.1 R² = 0.98

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Skew Angle, θ [degrees]
Geometry Effects?
 Field and Lab tests involved W/H ratios of 2.0

Laboratory Wall Field Wall

2 ft
5.5 ft

4 ft

11 ft

 Does this ratio impact the results?

Field Test with 0.9m Backfill - W/H=3.7
4 ft Dia. Reinforced
Concrete Shaft 2- 600 kip Actuators
11 ft x 5.5 ft high x 15 ft long
Pile Cap

0.9m

12.75 in. Dia.

Steel Pipe Piles
Passive Force-Displacement Curves
Pile Cap Dispalcement [cm]
0 2 4 6 8 10
180 800
160 700
0 Degree Skew
Longitudinal Force [kips]

Longitudinal Force [kN]

140 15 Degree Skew 600
30 Degree Skew
120 45 Degree Skew 500
100
400
80
300
60
40 200

0.09H
0.01H

0.02H

0.10H
100
0.03H

0.04H

0.05H

0.08H
0.06H

20 0.07H

0 0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Pile Cap Displacement [in]
Passive Force Reduction Factor vs. Skew
1
0.9
Lab Tests
0.8 Numerical Analysis
Reduction Factor, Rskew

0.7 Field Tests (This Study)

0.6 Proposed Reduction Line

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Rskew = 8x10-05θ2 - 0.018θ + 1
0.1 R² = 0.98
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Skew Angle, θ [degrees]
45º Skew with RC Wingwalls
Overall Best Fit – Simplified Equation
1
0.9
Shamsabadi & Rollins 2014
0.8
Reduction factor, Rskew

0.7 Rskew = e(-ϴ/45°)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Skew Angle, θ (Degrees)
Summary Relative to Skew Effects
 Significant decrease in passive force with increase in
skew angle.
• Numerical Analysis
• 8 Small Scale Lab Tests
• 11 Large Scale Field tests
 Simple reduction factor can account effect of skew angle
on passive force
 Reduction factor not much affected by wall W/H ratio
 Reduction factor not much affected by sand, gravel, or
GRS backfill type
 Passive force typically mobilized at Δ/H ≈ 3 to 5%
 Shear resistance largely mobilized with 0.25 inch of
movement at interface
Example Problem
Given:
 Abutment wall 6 ft high and 50 ft wide.
 Backfill soil is sandy gravel (A-1-a) compacted to 95% of
Modified Proctor density. ( γmoist = 135 pcf)
 Soil friction angle, φ, of 40º with no cohesion
 Assume soil/wall friction angle, δ, is 0.7φ = 28º
 Skew angle, θ, of 30º

Find: (a) Passive Force vs. Deflection Curve

(b) Shear Resistance vs. Deflection Curve
Adjustment for Width & Skew
PpH
θ = 30º
Previously PpH = 28.5 k/ft

For 0º skew condition

PpH = (28.5 k/ft) (50ft) = 1425 k
50 ft
Compute skew reduction factor
Rskew= e(-ϴ/45º) = e(-30º/45º) = 0.51

For 30º skew condition

PpH = (1425 k)(0.51) = 727 k
Passive Force-Displacement
PpH = 727k
θ = 30º
For a 6 ft high backwall:
Peak at 0.03H = 0.03(6 ft)(12in/ft)
= 2.2 in
PpH
50 ft
727 k

2.2 in
Displacement (in)
Shear Force-Displacement
PpH=727k
θ = 30º For a δ=28º = 0.70φ
T = 387k T = cA + PpHtanδ
= 0 + (727 k) tan(28º) = 387k
Peak at 0.25 in
T
50 ft
387k

0.25 in
Displacement (in)
 Bi-linear Passive Force vs. Displacement
Pile Cap Deflection [cm]
0 2 4 6 8 10
600

0.05H
0.03H

0.04H
0.02H
2,500
0° Skew
500
15° Skew
2,000
Passive Force [kips]

Passive Force [kN]

30° Skew
400 45° Skew
1,500
300
1,000
200

100 500

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pile Cap Deflection [in]
Hyperbolic Passive Force vs. Displacement
Pile Cap Deflection [cm]
0 2 4 6 8 10
600

0.05H
0.03H

0.04H
0.02H
2,500
0° Skew
500
15° Skew
2,000
Passive Force [kips]

Passive Force [kN]

30° Skew
400 45° Skew
1,500
300
1,000
200

100 500

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pile Cap Deflection [in]
Flowable Fill Abutment Tests
γ = 127 lbs/ft3
UCS = 50 to 60 psi
Flowable Fill Abutment Tests

Pp = 0.5γH2B + 2cHB, Passive force for cohesive soil

c = UCS/2
Flowable Fill Abutment Tests
Lightweight Cellular Concrete Backfill
γ = 30 lbs/ft3
UCS = 50 to 60 psi
Passive Force-Deflection Curves
1200

30 Skew
1000
0 Skew
Passive Force (kips)

800

600

400

200

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Avg. Pile Cap Displacement (in)

Pp = 0.5γH2B + 2cHB, Passive force for cohesive soil

Lateral Pile Resistance at Abutments
 Group interaction factors (P-multipliers)
 Reduction factors for presence of MSE wall face
 Pile Group Interaction

Leading Row Piles Row 1

Row 2

Trailing Row Piles

Row 3

Direction of
Loading
Lateral Load Analysis for Piles with p-y Curves
H

p
Interval
y y
p
1

y y
p 2

y y
3
Non-linear p
springs y
y 4
p
y
5
y
P-Multiplier Concept (Brown et al, 1988)
Horizontal Force/Length, P

Single Pile Curve

PSP
Group Pile Curve

PGP = PMULT PSP

Horizontal Displacement, y
9 Pile Group at 5.6 D Spacing

Pinned
Connection

LVDT Tie-Rod
Load Cell
3x5 Pile Group at 3.3 D Spacing
 3x3 Pile Group at 5.6 Dia. Spacing
250

200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

150

100
Single
Row 1
50
Row 2
Row 3
0
0 20 40 60 80
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
 3x5 Pile Group at 3.3D Spacing
250
Single
Row 1
200
Avg. Pile Load (kN)

Row 2
Row 3
150 Row 4
Row 5
100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Avg. Group Deflection (mm)
P-Multipliers from AASHTO
 P-Multipliers from Tests
(a) Leading Row P-Multipliers (b) Trailing Row P-Multipliers
1.2 1.2
Reese et al (1996) Reese et al (1996)
1.0 1.0

P-Multiplier
P-Multiplier

0.8 0.8

AASHTO (1998) AASHTO (1998)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Row 2-Stiff Clay Rollins et al (2003)
Stiff Clay-Rollins et al (2003) Rows 3-5-Stiff Clay-Rollins et al (2003)
0.2 0.2 Row 2-Soft Clay-This Study
Soft Clay-This Study
Rows 3-5-Soft Clay-This Study
0.0 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam. Pile Spacing (c-c)/Pile Diam.

Rollins et al., 2005

Abutment Piles near MSE Walls
Abutment Piles Near MSE Walls
 MSE Wall Geometry
S

Elevation View Plan View

 Wall decreases lateral pile resistance
 Pile load increases force on reinforcement
 Approaches to the Problem
Ignore Soil Resistance

Increased Cost from Larger Pile Diameter or More Piles

Approaches to the Problem
Increase Spacing to Eliminate Interaction

Increased Cost from Larger Bridge Span

Approaches to the Problem
Estimate a Reduction Factor

What should the reduction be?

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Abutment Wall
MSE Test Wall (20 ft high & 100 ft long)

24 Tests with round, square, & H piles at 2D to 5D

Profile View of Test Layout

S
Surcharge

H H

L L

Ultimate Design Layout During Tests

 Plan and Elevation View of Test Abutment

Plan View

Surcharge

18 ft
Strip Reinforcement Welded Wire grid Reinforcement

Elevation View

20 ft
15 ft

40 ft 100 ft 40 ft
 Cross-Section Through MSE Wall
Test Pile
Varies Reaction
Beam Reaction
Wall Panels (2 to 5 ft) Surcharge - 600 psf
Pile
(5 ft x 10 ft)

Random Fill

Select Granular Backfill

20 ft

Reinforcing Elements

Native Soil
2 ft

18 ft
Unreinforced
Concrete 25 ft
Level Pad
(6 in. x 12 in)
 Pile Testing Sequence
Reaction Beam Reaction Beam Reaction Beam

2D 3D 4D 5D 5D 4D 3D 2D 2D 3D 4D 5D 5D 4D 3D 2D

12.75” Pipe Piles HP12x74 Piles 12” Square 12.75” Pipe Piles
Piles

Strip Type Reinforcement Wire Mat Type Reinforcement

20 ft
15 ft Wall
Wall
Total L/H
–– L/H ≈≈ 0.9
of 31 0.7
Tests
Nuclear Density Gauge Tests
 Typical Test Set-up

Reaction Pile
Reaction Beam Pre-cast
Concrete Blocks
 Typical Test Set-up

Test Pile

Pre-cast Block
Surcharge Reaction Pile

Reaction Beam
Load Test Photos

Hydraulic
Jack Pinned
Connection
Effect of MSE Wall on Lateral Pile Resistance
 Pipe Piles with Strip Reinforcement
70
Reaction
60 3.9D
3.1D
50 2.7D
1.7D
Load (kip)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection (in)
Square Piles with Welded-Wire Reinforcement
P-multiplier Concept For Proximity of the Wall
Horizontal Force/Length, P

Pile Single
Away Pile
fromCurve
Wall

Paw
SP
Pile Near
Group Pile Wall
Curve

PGP
nw
= PMULT Paw
SP

Horizontal Displacement, y
 Measured and Computed Load-Deflection
60

Calibrated p-y curves for

50 pile at 3.9D spacing

P-multipliers
Pile head load (kip)

40
back-calculated
for closer piles
30
3.9D
p-multiplier = 1
20
3.1D
p-multiplier = 0.95
2.8D
10 p-multiplier = 0.7
1.7D
p-multiplier = 0.33
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pile head deflection (in)
 P-multipliers from All Tests
1.2
Pmult = 1.0
1
Pmult = 0.32(S/D) - 0.23
0.8 R2 = 0.86 Previous Tests (L/H=0.9 to 1.2)
P-multiplier

SSL (L/H=0.90)
0.6 RECo (L/H=0.90)
Reco (L/H=0.72)
0.4 SSL (L/H=0.72)
Square (L/H=0.72)
0.2 H (L/H=0.72)
Best Fit Line
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Normalized Distance , S/D
Effect of Variables on P-multiplier Equation

Not significantly affected by reinforcement type Not significantly affected by L/H ratio

RED = ribbed strips RED = L/H of 1.0+

BLUE = welded wire BLUE = L/H of 0.9
GREEN = L/H of 0.7
 Passive Force References
• Duncan, M.J. and Mokwa, R.L. (2001). “Passive earth pressure: theories and tests,”
J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg. ASCE, 127(3), 248-257.
• Cole, R.T and Rollins, K.M. (2006). “Passive Earth Pressure Mobilization During
Cyclic Loading.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., Vol. 132, No. 9,
1154-1164.
• Rollins, K.M. and Cole, R.T. (2006). “Cyclic Lateral Load Behavior of a Pile Cap and
Backfill.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9,
1143-1153.
• Rollins, K.M. and Sparks, A.E. (2002) “Lateral Load Capacity of a Full-Scale Fixed-
Head Pile Group.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
128, No. 9, p. 711-723.
• Rollins, K.M., Sparks, A.E., Peterson, K.T. (2000) “Lateral Load Capacity and
Passive Resistance of a Full-Scale Pile Group and Cap.” Transportation Research
Record 1736, Transportation Research Board, p. 24-32
• Rollins, K. M. and Jessee, S. (2013). “Passive Force-Deflection Curves for Skewed
Abutments”. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 18, No. 10, p. 1086-1094
• Marsh, A., Rollins, K.M., Behavior of Zero and Thirty Degree Skewed Abutments.”
(2013). Journal of Transportation Research, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC. Vol. 2363 (Soil Mechanics 2013), p. 12-20
• Shamsabadi, A., ROLLINS, K.M., Kapaskur, M. (2007). “Nonlinear Soil-Abutment-
Bridge Structure Interaction for Seismic Performance-Based Design.” J. of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, (June 2007) Vol. 133, No. 6,
707-720.
• Rollins, K.M., Scott, E., Marsh, E. (2017). “Geofoam Inclusions for Reducing
Passive Force on Bridge Abutments Based on Large-Scale Tests.” Procs.
Geotechnical Frontiers, Geotechnical Special Publication 279, ASCE, p. 59-68.
Lateral Pile Group Load References
• Rollins, K.M., Olsen, R.J., Egbert, J.J., Jensen, D.H., Olsen, K.G., and
Garrett, B.H. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior:
Load Tests.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol.
132, No. 10, p. 1262-1271,
• Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H, Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J., and
Egbert, J.J. (2006). “Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior:
Analysis.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 132,
No. 10, p. 1272-1283.
• Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D., Gerber, T. M. (2005) “Measured and Computed
Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Sand.” J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE Vol. 131, No. 1, p. 103-114.
• Rollins, K.M., Snyder, J.L. and Broderick, R.D. (2005). “Static and Dynamic
Lateral Response of a 15 Pile Group.” Procs. 16th Intl. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Geotech. Engineering, Millpress, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, Vol. 4, p. 2035-2040.
• Rollins K., Budd, R., Luna, A., Hatch, C., Besendorfer, J., Han, J., and
Gladstone, R. (2016). “Lateral Resistance of Abutment Piles Near MSE
Walls.” International Bridge Conference, Washington, D.C., paper 16-52, 8
p.
• Rollins, K.M. and Nelson, K. (2015). “Influence of pile offset behind an
MSE wall on lateral pile resistance.” Procs. XVI European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Geotechnical Engineering
for Infrastructure and Development, ICE publishing, p. 1163-1168
Lateral Pile Resistance Near MSE Walls
• Rollins K., Budd, R., Luna, A., Hatch, C., Besendorfer, J., Han, J., and
Gladstone, R. (2016). “Lateral Resistance of Abutment Piles Near MSE
Walls.” International Bridge Conference, Washington, D.C., paper 16-52, 8
p.
• Rollins, K.M. and Nelson, K. (2015). “Influence of pile offset behind an
MSE wall on lateral pile resistance.” Procs. XVI European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Geotechnical Engineering
for Infrastructure and Development, ICE publishing, p. 1163-1168
Questions?
Brigham Young University Campus
 Today’s Participants

• Ken Fishman, McMahon and Mann Consulting

Engineers, PC, kfishman@mmce.net
• Kyle Rollins, Brigham Young University,
rollinsk@byu.edu
 Get Involved with TRB
• Getting involved is free!
• Join a Standing Committee (http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6)
– AFF50 (Seismic Design & Performance of Bridges)
• Become a Friend of a Committee
(http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)
– Networking opportunities
– May provide a path to become a Standing Committee
member
• For more information: www.mytrb.org
– Create your account
– Update your profile

97th TRB Annual Meeting: January 7-11, 2018

Take Part in the Careers in Motion
Networking Fair

http://bit.ly/CareersInMotionFair