See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339414564

Predictive Equation for Estimating Lateral Deformation of GRS Abutments

Conference Paper · February 2020

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482797.046

CITATIONS READS
0 29

4 authors, including:

Mahsa Khosrojerdi Tong Qiu

Arup North America Pennsylvania State University
11 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   409 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Service Limit State Design and Analysis of Engineered Fills for Bridge Support View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ming Xiao on 04 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 472

Predictive Equation for Estimating Lateral Deformation of GRS Abutments

Mahsa Khosrojerdi, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Ming Xiao, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2;
Tong Qiu, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3; and Jennifer Nicks, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE4
1
Geotechnical Engineer, Arup North America Ltd., Los Angeles, CA. E-mail:
mahsa.khosrojerdi@arup.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State Univ.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PA. E-mail: mxiao@engr.psu.edu

3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State Univ.,
PA. E-mail: tqiu@engr.psu.edu
4
Research Geotechnical Engineer, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA. E-mail: jennifer.nicks@dot.gov
ABSTRACT
The geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS), which consists of
closely-spaced layers of geosynthetic reinforcement and compacted granular fill material, is a
fast and cost-effective approach for bridge support that is increasingly being used. The in-service
performance of this innovative bridge support system is largely evaluated through the
deformations of the GRS abutments. This paper presents a predictive model for estimating the
lateral deformation of GRS abutments under service loads. The parameters that are considered in
the predictive model include abutment geometry (height, foundation width, facing batter),
backfill friction angle, and reinforcement characteristics (stiffness, spacing, length), and applied
static loads from 0 to 400 kPa. In order to develop this predictive equation, a comprehensive
parametric study was conducted using a validated 3D finite difference numerical model. The
results of the parametric study were used to derive the predictive equation using statistical
analysis. The developed equation was validated using four case studies. Such a prediction model
would be useful to practitioners in preliminary GRS abutment design.
INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) abutments are an economical solution to accelerated
bridge construction that uses readily available materials and equipment and performs well
(Adams et al. 2011). Accordingly, GRS structures have gained increasing popularity in the
world. Generally, a GRS bridge abutment system is more sustainable than a pile-supported
abutment system. GRS systems are typically less expensive to construct and produce lower CO2
emissions; therefore, there is less potential impact on climate change than the alternative pile-
supported abutment system (Philips et al. 2016).
Since GRS abutments support bridge structures, determining the abutments’ settlement and
lateral deformation under service loads is of great importance. Presently, six methods are
available for predicting the lateral deformations of GRS walls and abutments, namely, the
FHWA method, Geoservice method, CTI method, Jewell-Milligan method, Wu Method; and
Adams method. For estimating the maximum lateral deformation in the FHWA method
developed by Christopher et al. (1990), a fourth-order polynomial empirical equation is used.
Giroud (1989) developed the Geoservice method based on a limit equilibrium analysis using the
maximum strain generated in reinforcement layers to calculate lateral deformation. A semi-
empirical relationship was used by Wu (1994) to develop the Colorado Transportation Institute

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 473

(CTI) method for walls with heights less than 6.1 m. Jewell (1988) and Jewell and Milligan
(1989) proposed design charts to estimate the lateral deformation of GRS walls and abutments at
different heights. Wu et al. (2013) developed an analytical model for calculating the lateral
deformation of GRS walls based on the graphs by Jewell (1988) and Jewell and Milligan (1989).
In the Adams method, the maximum lateral deformation of GRS abutments is calculated based
on the vertical settlement of the GRS abutment (Adams et al. 2002). Khosrojerdi et al. (2016)
evaluated the conservativeness, accuracy, and reliability of these methods. They concluded that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for estimating the maximum lateral deformation of GRS walls and abutments, the FHWA and
Jewell-Milligan methods are the most conservative methods whereas the Geoservice method is
the most unconservative method. Therefore, there is a need for a model that can accurately
predict the lateral deformation of a GRS abutment without having to assume the deformations or
reinforcement strain beforehand.
In this study, numerical modeling was used to study the maximum lateral deformation of a
GRS abutment placed on a rigid foundation. The large-scale experiments conducted by Bathurst
et al. (2000) on the performance of GRS walls at the end of construction and under service loads
were first simulated and the simulation results were compared with the measured ones to validate
the developed numerical model. After model validation, the effects of backfill soil’s friction
angle, reinforcement characteristics (stiffness, spacing, and length), and abutment geometry
(height, facing batter and foundation width) on the deformations of a GRS abutment were
investigated in a series of parametric study. The results of the parametric study were used to
conduct a nonlinear regression analysis to develop an equation for predicting the maximum
lateral deformation of GRS abutments under service loads. The accuracy of the proposed
prediction equation was evaluated based on the results of four experimental case studies.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The full-scale tests of two GRS walls by Bathurst et al. (2000) were simulated to validate the
numerical model by comparing the numerical and experimental results in terms of the lateral
deformation of GRS walls under surcharge loads.
Overview of Full-Scale GRS Wall Testing
Two well-instrumented GRS walls were selected for this validation and are identified as Wall
1 and Wall 2. These walls were 3.6-m high and 3.4-m wide with backfill soil extending to a
distance of 6 m from the front edge of the wall and were seated on a rigid concrete foundation.
The backfill soil was a uniform, rounded beach sand, classified as SP according to the Unified
Soil Classification System with D50=0.34 mm. The sand was compacted at 50% relative density
to a unit weight of 16.8 kN/m3 and had a constant-volume friction angle of  'cv =35° and a peak
plane strain friction angle of  ps =44°. Both walls had a facing batter of 8 from the vertical
direction and were constructed using a weak biaxial polypropylene (PP) geogrid placed at 0.6 m
vertical spacing. The two walls were identical except that the stiffness and strength of the
geogrid of Wall 2 were half of those used in Wall 1. The ultimate strength of the geogrid in Wall
1 was 14 kN/m with the initial tangent stiffness of 115 kN/m.
Numerical Model and Material Properties
The finite difference-based program FLAC3D 6.0 (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) was

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 474

used to simulate the GRS walls. The Plastic Hardening (PH) model was used to simulate the
behavior of the backfill soil. The Plastic Hardening constitutive model assumes a non-linear
elasto-plastic behavior for the soil. This model was developed based on the work of Schanz et al.
(1999), which extended the hyperbolic nonlinear elastic model (Duncan and Chang 1970) to an
elasto-plastic model. In this model, different stiffness values are used under different confining
pressures and loading conditions. In the PH model, the stiffness modulus E50 changes with
confining pressure and obeys the following power law:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

m
 c cot    '3 
E50  E 
ref
ref 
(1)
 c cot   p 
50

where  3' is the minor principal stress; E50ref is the secant stiffness in a standard drained
triaxial test; pref is the reference pressure for stiffness. The degree of stress dependency is
determined by the power m . For granular material, m is between 0.4 and 0.9 (Schanz and
Vermeer 1998). The failure ratio R f is smaller than 1, q f is the ultimate deviatory stress, and qa
is defined as:
qf
qa  (2)
Rf
The constitutive model parameters were calibrated based on end of construction deformation
results of Wall 1 and then used for the rest of the simulations. The E50 Ref value was selected
based on the relationship of E50Ref and friction angles suggested by Obrzud and Truty (2010).
Table 1 summarizes the model parameters used in this study.
Table 1. Model parameters used for simulating the GRS walls of Bathurst et al. (2000)
Model Parameters
Plastic Hardening Model Parameters
E50ref (MPa) 110
m (dimensionless) 0.5
Rf (dimensionless) 0.75
ref
P (kPa) 100
 (dimensionless) 0.3
Block-Block Interface Properties
Friction angle () 57
Normal stiffness (kN/m/m) 1000×103
Shear stiffness (kN/m/m) 50×103
Soil-Block Interface Properties
Friction angle () 44
Normal stiffness (kN/m/m) 1×105
Shear stiffness (kN/m/m) 1×103

The biaxial geogrids were modeled as a linear elastic material using the “geogrid structural
elements” readily available in FLAC3D. The interface shear stiffness value was calibrated as 200
MN/m2/m, which was consistent with the recommendation from Perkins and Cuelho (1999). The
solid masonry blocks and the concrete foundation beneath the wall were simulated as linearly

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 475

elastic materials with modulus E = 3.3 GPa and Poisson’s ratio  = 0.2, and E = 27 GPa and  =
0.2, respectively. To model the interface elements, FLAC3D uses linear spring-slider systems and
limits the shear force acting on interface nodes by using the linear Mohr-Coulomb shear strength
criterion. For block-block and soil-block interface properties, the parameters used by Hatami and
Bathurst (2006) for simulating this experiment were used.
Multistage simulations were carried out to model the construction process to account for
compaction-induced stresses in the soil, geogrid, and their interface. In the numerical simulation,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a temporary uniform vertical stress of 8 kPa was applied to the entire top surface of each new
backfill layer until the simulation reached equilibrium. The temporary uniform surcharge was
then removed prior to the placement of the next lift. Similar approaches were used by Hatami
and Bathurst (2004) and Zheng and Fox (2017).
NUMERICAL MODEL VALIDATION
The validated model was used to simulate the lateral deformations of Walls 1 and 2 at
different surcharge levels. Figure 1 shows post-construction lateral deformations of Walls 1 and
2 at surcharge loads of 30, 50, and 70 kPa. Error bars shows the minimum and maximum values
of each pair of tentiometers mounted against the facing. Surcharge loads were applied uniformly
on the entire surface of the backfill as in the experiments. Figure 1 indicates that the numerical
model is capable of predicting the lateral deformations of GRS walls under surcharge loads.

Figure 1. Post-construction lateral deformation of Wall 1 and Wall 2 at: (a) 30 kPa; (b) 50
kPa; (c) 70 kPa surcharge. Datum is end of construction
PARAMETRIC STUDY
The validated model was used to conduct a parametric study to investigate the effect of
different parameters on the performance of GRS abutments. Table 2 presents the eight
parameters and their range of values typically considered in the design and the literature (Xiao et
al. 2016). For soils with different friction angles, the soil’s unit weight and E50ref values are
updated based on the suggested ranges by Obrzud and Truty (2010) for granular materials as
summarized in Table 3.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 476

Table 2. Range of parameters used in parametric study

Parameters (unit) Values
Backfill
Friction angle, () 40, 45, 46, 48, 50, 55
properties
Reinforcement spacing, Sv (m) 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
Reinforcement 0.4H, 0.5H, 0.7H, H
Reinforcement length, LR
properties (H is height of abutment)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Reinforcement initial stiffness, J (kN/m) 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500

Abutment height, H (m) 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
Abutment
Facing batter, () 0, 2, 4, 8
geometry
Concrete footing width, B (m) 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.5, 2, 3
Surcharge load (kPa) 50, 100, 200, 400

Table 3. Unit weight and E50ref values for soils with different friction angles (after Obrzud
and Truty 2010)
Friction angle (Deg) 40 45 46 48 50 55
Unit weight (kN/m3) 17.1 18.7 19.1 19.9 21.2 24.3
ref
E50 (MPa) 90 120 130 150 180 240

Figure 2 shows a general GRS abutment configuration in the parametric study. A concrete
foundation was placed on top of the abutment, and the load from a bridge structure was applied
on the foundation. There was a 0.2 m space between the concrete foundation and the facing
blocks. The reinforcement ultimate strength of 35 kN/m was used in all simulations. The model
also assumes the GRS abutment rests on a rigid foundation that does not deform.

Figure 2. FLAC3D model for simulating GRS abutment performance

To evaluate the effect of each parameter on a GRS abutment’s lateral deformation, the
parametric study was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, the value of just one parameter was
varied while the other parameters were assigned fixed values (denoted as benchmark values).
Benchmark values that are typical for GRS abutment design were assigned to each parameter in
this phase and are shown as bold values in Table 2. The objective of Phase 1 was to obtain an
initial understanding of the deformation variation with one parameter when the other parameters
were fixed. A total of 172 simulations were conducted in Phase 1 to evaluate the effect of each

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 477

parameter under four applied loads (50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa). The results of the maximum
lateral deformation of the GRS abutments are graphed in Figure 3. The maximum lateral
deformation decreases with decreasing reinforcement spacing, abutment height, surcharge load,
and foundation width, and increasing backfill friction angle, reinforcement length and stiffness,
and facing batter.
In Phase 2, the parameters were varied simultaneously using a random number generator and
the lateral deformation of GRS abutment was evaluated considering the aggregated effects of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eight parameters on deformations. These combinations led to a total of 172 numerical

simulations during Phase 2 to investigate the aggregated effects of these parameters on lateral
deformations under different surcharge loads.
PREDICTION EQUATION
Nonlinear Regression Analysis
To develop a prediction equation for estimating the maximum lateral deformation of a GRS
abutment, a nonlinear regression analysis was performed to find the best equation which can
reasonably predict the deformation. A dataset containing a total of 344 data points was used to
carry out the regression analysis. The regression model development started with studying the
physics of the problem and how different parameters affected the deformations. A basic equation
such as Eq. 3 would be considered as the first assumption of the model.
GRS  a0  a1 x1  a2 x2  a3 x3  a4 x4  a5 x5  a6 x6  a7 x7  a8 x8 (3)
In this equation, GRS is the maximum lateral deformation of GRS abutment, ai are constant
coefficients, xi represent functions of input parameters which could have any format (i = 0 to 8).
After defining xi functions, ai values were adjusted in a way such that the model prediction
achieved the best fit to the database. Based on the predicted results by the regression model, the
coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated for
the model. Different equations could be developed, but the best prediction model should have the
least RMSE and the highest coefficient of determination.
Developing Prediction Equation
Since the true mechanics behind the behavior of GRS abutment is complex, a trial-and-error
approach was used to determine the most appropriate model for predicting the deformations of a
GRS abutment. For each input parameter, different functions can be assumed. The effects of
individual variables on the deformation of the GRS abutment, as investigated during Phase 1,
were studied to find functions of the eight input parameters and develop the prediction model.
For example, considering the effects of reinforcement stiffness on deformations of GRS
abutments (Figure 3c), it seemed that the deformation curve is similar in shape to a y=Ja curve
with -1<a<0. After defining functions for the input parameters, multiple prediction equations
were developed to estimate deformations of GRS abutment based on different combinations of
these functions. The best prediction equation should have the least RMSE, the highest R2, and
logical signs for the ai values. The polarity of each coefficient ai represents the relationship
between xi and GRS. For example, the positive sign of ai indicates that by increasing xi value, the
abutment deformation increases, while the negative sign of ai shows that by increasing xi value,
the abutment deformation decreases.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 478
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Post-construction maximum lateral deformation of GRS abutments for different

(a) soil friction angle; (b) reinforcement spacing (c) reinforcement stiffness; (d) abutment
height; (e) facing batter; (f) foundation width; (g) reinforcement length

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 479

A total of 150 equations were examined to find the most precise equation for estimating the
maximum lateral deformations. Based on the analysis, Eq. 4 is the most accurate equation for
predicting the lateral deformation of GRS abutment under surcharge loads with R2 = 0.91 and
RMSE = 0.0043. To use such an equation, q should be in the unit of kPa,  and  should be in
degrees, and Sv, J, H, LR, and B should be in the unit of m.
Sv   
LGRS  7.4 104  q1.32  tan 2 (90   )  0.17  B1.11  1.53  1.69(1  )  0.021H  0.002LR 2  (4)
J  90 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. GRS abutment parameters of the case studies

Set  J Sv B  H LR
References
No. () (kN/m) (m) (m) () (m) (m)
1 Helwany et al. (2007) 34.8 800 0.2 0.9 0 4.65 3.15
2 Helwany et al. (2007) 34.8 380 0.2 0.9 0 4.65 3.15
Hatami and Bathurst
3 40 115 0.6 6.0 8 3.6 2.5
(2005)
Hatami and Bathurst
4 40 56.5 0.6 6.0 8 3.6 2.5
(2005)

Table 5. A comparison among different prediction methods of lateral deformation

Jewell-
FHWA Adams
This study Milligan Wu method
Actual method method
Set Load method
value
No. (kPa)
(mm)  Error  Error  Error  Error  Error
(mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%)
307 24 40 67 - - - - - - 16 -33.3
1
475 57 71 25 - - - - - - 42 -26.3
214 36 28 -22 - - - - - - 27 -25.0
2 317 61 48 -21 - - - - - - 45 -26.2
414 115 68 -41 - - - - - - 69 -40.0
30 9 13 44 68 656 31 244 7.3 -18.9 - -
3 50 21 26 24 81 286 38 81 17 -19.0 - -
70 37 40 8 93 151 44 19 31 -16.2 - -
30 12 15 25 68 467 62 417 15 25.0 - -
4 50 37 30 -19 81 119 75 103 34 -8.1 - -
70 58 47 -19 93 60 89 53 61 5.2 - -

Evaluation of GRS Abutment Prediction Equations using Case Studies

To evaluate the developed prediction equation for GRS abutment lateral deformations, four
experiments were selected to compare the measured lateral deformation results with predicted
ones. The predicted results were also compared with predictions from other available methods.
The description of each method and the terms of using these methods are explained in Xiao et al.
(2016) and Khosrojerdi et al. (2016). Table 4 presents a summary of the GRS abutment
properties tested by Helwany et al. (2007) and Hatami and Bathurst (2005). Table 5 summarized
the lateral deformation values predicted by these methods and the equation proposed by this

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 480

study, as well as error percentage for each of them.

A negative sign of error indicates under-prediction. Due to different conditions and input
parameters that these models need, such as the maximum reinforcement strain value, the six
prediction methods cannot be used to estimate the deformation of all cases. As Table 5 indicates,
the proposed prediction equation by this study has good flexibility in estimating the lateral
deformation of GRS abutments with different conditions compared to other available methods.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this paper was to provide a prediction equation for estimating the maximum
lateral deformation of a GRS abutment. A finite difference based numerical model was used to
study the performance of GRS abutments placed on a rigid foundation. To simulate the behavior
of the backfill, the Plastic Hardening model was used as the constitutive model. The developed
model was validated against the results of large-scale experiments by comparing the simulated
and measured results of the GRS wall’s lateral deformations under surcharge loads. The
validated model was then used to conduct a parametric study of the effects of soil friction angle,
reinforcement characteristics (stiffness, spacing, length), and abutment geometry (height, facing
batter, foundation width) under applied static loads from 50 to 400 kPa on lateral deformation of
a GRS abutment. Results of the parametric study were used to conduct a regression analysis and
developed the prediction equation for estimating the maximum lateral deformation of GRS
abutment. The following conclusions are reached as a result of this investigation:
 GRS abutment’s lateral deformation decreases with decreasing reinforcement spacing,
abutment height, surcharge load, and foundation width, and increasing backfill friction
angle, reinforcement length and stiffness, and facing batter.
 Evaluation of the developed prediction equation showed that the proposed equation can
be used with fair accuracy in estimating the maximum lateral deformation of GRS
abutment under service loads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support of this study is provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under
Contract No. DTFH6114C00012. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank
Michael Adams, Khalid Mohamed, and Naser M. Abu-Hejleh of the FHWA who provided
valuable input in the research. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the FHWA.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. T., Lillis, C. P., Wu, J. T. H., and Ketchart, K. (2002). “Vegas Mini Pier experiment
and postulate of zero volume change.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. Geosynthetics, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands, 389–394.
Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J. T., Schlatter, W., and Hartmann, J. (2011).
“Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system interim implementation guide.” Rep.
No. FHWA-HRT-11-026, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Bathurst, R. J.,Walters, D. L., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess, P. G., and Allen, T. M. (2000). “Full-
scale testing of geosynthetic reinforced walls.” Proc., Advances in Transportation and
Geoenvironmental Systems Using Geosynthetics, Geo-Denver, J. G. Zonrberg and B. R.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316 481

Christopher, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 201–217.

Christopher, B. R., Gill, S. A., Giroud, J. P., Mitchell, J. K., Schlosser, F., and Dunnicliff, J.
(1990). “Reinforced soil structures. Vol. 1: Design and construction guidelines.” Rep. No.
FHWA-RD 89-043, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y. (1970). “Non-linear analysis of stress and strain in soils.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div., 96(5), 1629–1653.
Giroud, J. P. (1989). “Geotextile engineering workshop-design examples.” Rep. No. FHWA-HI-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

89-002, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Hatami, K. and Bathurst, R.J. (2004). “Verification of a numerical model for reinforced soil
segmental retaining walls.” Slopes and retaining structures under static and seismic
conditions. ASCE proceedings.
Hatami, K. and Bathurst, R.J. (2005). “Development and Verification of a Numerical Model for
the Analysis of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Segmental Walls under Working Stress
Conditions,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(4), 1066–1085.
Hatami, K. and Bathurst, R.J. (2006). “Numerical model for reinforced soil segmental walls
under surcharge loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
132(6), 673-684.
Helwany, S.M., Wu, J.T., and Kitsabunnarat, A. (2007). “Simulating the behavior of GRS bridge
Abutments.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 133(10):1229-
1240.
Itasca (2001). “Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC).” Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Jewell, R. A. (1988). “Reinforced soil wall analysis and behavior.” The application of polymeric
reinforcement in soil retaining structures, Kluwer, Netherlands.
Jewell, R. A., and Milligan, G. W. E. (1989). “Deformation calculation for reinforced soil walls.”
Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Taylor &
Francis, Abingdon, U.K., 1259–1262.
Khosrojerdi, M., Xiao, M., Qiu, T., and Nicks, J. (2016). "Evaluation of Prediction Methods for
Lateral Deformation of GRS Walls and Abutments." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(2), 06016022.
Phillips, E. K., Shillaber, C. M., Mitchell, J. K., Dove, J. E., & Filz, G. M. (2016). Sustainability
Comparison of a Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Abutment and a Traditionally-Founded
Abutment: A Case History. In Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 (pp.
699-711).
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., and Bonnier, P.G. (1999). “The hardening soil model: formulation
and verification. “Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics, 281-296.
Wu, J. T. (1994). “Design and construction of low cost retaining walls: The next generation in
technology.” Rep. No. CTI-UCD-1-94, Colorado Transportation Institute, Denver, CO.
Wu, J. T., Pham, T. Q., and Adams, M. T. (2013). “Composite behavior of geosynthetic
reinforced soil mass.” FHWA Rep. No. FHWA-HRT- 10-077, McLean, VA.
Xiao, M., Qui, T., Khosrojerdi, M., Basu, P., and Withiam, J. L. (2016). Synthesis and evaluation
of the service limit state of engineered fills for bridge support (No. FHWA-HRT-15-080).
United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Infrastructure Research and
Development.
Zheng, Y. and Fox, P.J. (2017). “Numerical Investigation of the Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil–
Integrated Bridge System under Static Loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pennsylvania State University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE

View publication stats

Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 316

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(6), 04017008.

Geo-Congress 2020
482