Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Design and construction of the first GRS integrated bridge with

FHR facings in Europe
Stanislav Lenart a,⇑, Matevž Kralj b, Samo Peter Medved b, Jure Šuler c
a
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (ZAG), Dimičeva ulica 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Lineal d.o.o., Jezdarska ulica 3, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
c
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The bridge across the Pavlovski potok stream in the village of Žerovinci in northeast
Received 15 July 2015 Slovenia is a part of the investment into the modernisation of the Pragersko–Hodoš railway
Revised 4 July 2016 line, one of the biggest investments in the infrastructure in Slovenia at the moment. Its
Accepted 6 July 2016
design was accompanied by very short deadlines and a deep layer of soft foundation soil.
Available online 15 July 2016
For this reason the reinforced concrete abutments of a nearby railway bridge were founded
on 24 m deep piled foundations. Short deadlines and a limited budget forced the authors of
Keywords:
this paper to find an alternative solution. Deep piled foundations were replaced by shallow
Reinforced soil
Geosynthetics
foundations made of compacted fill material reinforced with geosynthetics. The bridge was
GRS integrated bridge completed by the end of 2014. From the results of previous laboratory tests that were
Deformation obtained within the scope of the EU co-funded research project ‘‘Research voucher”, the
Compacted fill basic characteristics of the building materials for the geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS)
bridge abutments, as well as the deformation properties of the typical reinforced soil were
obtained. These data were used for the design of the abutments. The staged construction
procedure of full height rigid (FHR) facings for the GRS retaining walls (RW) was used
for the construction of this GRS integrated bridge. Partial pre-stressing of geogrids and con-
sequently the increased stiffness of the reinforced soil was achieved by following the
staged construction procedure. The bridge system consisted of a cast-in-situ RC slab, which
was placed on top of the GRS immediately behind the FHR facings, i.e. the bridge was con-
structed as a simply-supported slab supported by a pair of GRS abutments, without the use
of bearings. Thus the described bridge across the Pavlovski potok combines two
approaches for GRS integrated bridge design, one of which has been used in Japan
(Tatsuoka et al., 2009), with full structural integration of the deck onto the pair of FHR fac-
ings, other being proposed by the FHWA (Adams et al., 2010), without full integration of
the deck onto the GRS RWs. A system for the monitoring of structure performance was
established in order to ensure optimization of this kind of structure. Data for this GRS inte-
grated bridge, which were obtained during the construction works were compared to sim-
ilar data obtained from the construction of a nearby railway bridge with reinforced
concrete abutments. The comparison provides a good basis for future decisions when
choosing the type of bridge abutments.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: stanislav.lenart@zag.si (S. Lenart).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.07.003
2214-3912/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
Introduction
The use of geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) technol-
ogy has become common practice in the design of retain-
ing structures and embankments for infrastructure
projects all over the world. This is due to cost savings,
the simple and rapid construction technique, the reduced
construction time, the reduced environmental effects, good
seismic performance, and some other factors. Also, a num-
ber of studies have been conducted over the last two dec-
ades with the aim of investigating the size of the surcharge
load which can be applied to the top of GRS structures, and
the applicability of GRS technology to the construction of
bridge supporting structures such as bridge piers and abut-
ments (Tatsuoka et al., 1997, 2009; Adams et al., 2002; Wu
et al., 2006). Particularly in the case of soft foundation
ground, there are two main reasons to use GRS abutments
instead of traditional piles: (1) to reduce the overall costs
of the project, and (2) to reduce or potentially eliminate
the ‘‘bridge bumps” which arises from differential settle-
ment between approach embankments and traditionally
reinforced-concrete (RC) bridge abutments supported by
piles (Helwany et al., 2003). The same reasons were rele-
vant to the design of the new bridge over the Pavlovski
potok stream in the village of Žerovinci (in north-eastern
Slovenia), which is presented in this paper. The other two
important reasons are: (1) the very short deadlines defined
by the investor for the opening of the bridge for traffic
within a period of two months at the end of 2014 (this
included both the design and the construction of the
bridge), and (2) a deep layer of soft foundation soil, which
encouraged the authors to propose the use of GRS inte-
grated bridge abutments.
Since the Terre Armee patent was first presented to the
world of geotechnical engineering (Vidal, 1972), the use of
reinforced soil technology in different applications has
undergone continuous worldwide development, including
in Europe. The first UK reinforced soil bridge abutments
were constructed at Carmarthen in 1981 (Brady, 1987),
whereas in Germany the first permanent bridge abutments
made of geosynthetic reinforced earth were built for the
crossing of the River Gera in Arnstadt, in 1996 (Herold,
2002). On the other hand, the Danish Road Directorate
reported in 2013 (DRD, 2014) about the first reinforced soil
bridge abutments which were constructed in Denmark on
the Tvaervej Nord northern link road. On this occasion,
numerous advantages were reported regarding the use of
bridge abutments of this kind, and the report states that
GRS bridge abutments will be used in the future without
reservation (DRD, 2014). However, there remain some seri-
ous problems with GRS bridge abutments as long as bridge
deck bearings are used. Thus, the elimination of such bear-
ings is an important feature of the GRS integrated bridge
concept. This concept allows integration of the bridge deck
onto the top of the GRS without the use of bearings.
Pioneering work in this field, although with some basic
differences, was performed in Japan by Tatsuoka and his
colleagues (Tatsuoka et al., 2009), and in the USA by the
FHWA (Adams et al., 2010). Tatsuoka et al. (2009) sug-
gested the use of a continuous deck with both of its ends
27
Fig. 1. The previously existing bridge before the reconstruction works
were performed.
fully structurally integrated into the top of a pair of full-
height rigid (FHR) facings of GRS walls (described later in
this paper). On the other hand, the FHWA (Adams et al.,
2010) developed a bridge system in which a single-span
simply-supported deck is placed, without structural inte-
gration, on top of the GRS, immediately behind the facings.
The latter typically consist of modular blocks. The advan-
tages of the GRS integrated bridge when the deck is fully
structurally integrated onto the top of a pair of FHR facings,
as presented by Tatsuoka et al. (2009), are as follows: (1)
the construction and maintenance of bearings becomes
unnecessary, (2) the reinforced-concrete deck becomes
more slender due to a significant reduction in the bending
moment resulting from the flexural resistance at the con-
nection between the deck and the facing, (3) seismic stabil-
ity is increased significantly due to the increased structural
integrity and reduced weight of the deck, and (4) due to
the greater structural integrity and smaller cross-section
of the deck, the bridge’s resistance to tsunami or similar
water flows during floods is significantly increased. It
should be noted that the GRS integrated bridge, as pre-
sented by the FHWA, does not benefit from any reduction
in the mid-span bending moment, which is a feature of
frame-type bridge structures having deck-facing structural
integrity, as proposed by Tatsuoka et al. The FHWA type of
GRS integrated bridge is constructed as a single simply-
supported deck supported by a pair of abutments, and is
therefore more appropriate for short span bridges. In any
case both systems have been successfully implemented
into practice over the last few years.
Design of the Bridge across the Pavlovski potok Stream
in Žerovinci
The bridge across the Pavlovski potok stream in the vil-
lage of Žerovinci in north-eastern Slovenia is a part of the
investment into the modernisation of the Pragersko–Hodoš
railway-line, which is the biggest investment in the infras-
tructure in Slovenia at the moment. In order to maintain
roads and the local traffic infrastructure, the Municipality
of Ormož decided to invest in the construction of a new
bridge on the roadway designated 802,501 across the
Pavlovski potok stream. In a case of high water levels the
28 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
existing bridge was constantly flooded due to the insuffi-
cient water flow capacity of its box-shaped culvert.
The existing bridge (Fig. 1) was demolished and
replaced by a new one. It was proposed that a reinforced
concrete slab, integrated onto a pair of geosynthetic rein-
forced soil bridge abutments, should be built. The distance
between the facings of the abutments is 5.50 m. Since the
crossing of the stream and the road is at a skewed angle
(i.e., not perpendicular, since the road crosses the stream
at an angle of 114°), a parallelogram-shaped slab was cho-
sen for the design of the RC superstructure (Fig. 2). A lon-
gitudinal cross-section of the bridge is shown in Fig. 3.
In Japan, but not elsewhere in the world, the staged
construction of GRS retaining walls (RW) with full height
rigid (FHR) facings has a long tradition (Tatsuoka et al.,
1997). As shown in Fig. 3, after site preparation (temporary
excavation works), soil bags (gabions) are placed at the
shoulder of each soil layer during the construction process
(Fig. 11a). The soil bags function as a temporary but stable
facing structure during the construction works, since they
resist the earth pressure generated by the compaction
works and by further backfilling at higher levels. After suf-
ficient deformation of the subsoil and the backfill has
occurred during the construction of the geosynthetic-
reinforced backfill, the full height rigid (FHR) facings are
constructed by means of cast-in-situ concrete (Fig. 11b)
in the space between the formwork and the wall face
which is wrapped-around with geosynthetic (geogrid)
reinforcement (Tatsuoka et al., 1997). As fresh concrete
can easily get inside the gravel-filled bags through the
apertures of the geogrids, which are wrapped-around the
gravel bags, there is a strong connection between the fac-
ings and the reinforcement layers. The procedure sounds
easy and simple, but it has been realised from personal
communication with its inventors (Tatsuoka et al., 1997)
that high connection strength between the reinforcement
layers and the FHR facing is crucial for proper performance
of GRS RWs with FHR facings. In fact, there was a case
where a contractor, who had insufficient previous experi-
ence, was not able to achieve such a good connection
between the facings and the reinforcement layers. For this
reason, and having in mind the fact that the span of the
Fig. 2. Plan view of the newly designed bridge.
bridge across the Pavlovski potok is rather short, the
authors decided not to take a risk with the first structurally
fully GRS integrated bridge in this part of the world. They
therefore decided to construct the bridge system with
the bridge deck placed on top of the GRS, immediately
behind the FHR facings, i.e. to construct the bridge as a
single-span simply-supported beam, without using a pair
of bearings, i.e. it is supported by the two GRS abutments.
Thus the bridge across the Pavlovski potok stream, pre-
sented in this paper, combines the two approaches, the
one used in Japan and the other proposed by the FHWA,
for GRS integrated bridge design.
Geotechnical conditions
No preliminary geological–geotechnical investigations
of the ground had been performed at the exact location
of the bridge. Instead, all the available data and results
from investigations performed for the design of another
bridge located 50 m upstream and supported by deep
foundations using piles were taken into account. Table 1
summarizes the geological–geotechnical data, including
the results of standard penetration tests, which were
obtained at the site of the upstream bridge.
Due to the low shear strength and compressibility of the
sub-soil as presented by these geotechnical conditions, a
deep piled foundation would have been used if a tradi-
tional bridge were to have been constructed. Due to time
and cost limitations, however, it was decided to employ
GRS bridge abutments with FHR facings that are stage-
constructed in order to ensure good external stability
while simultaneously minimizing the potential negative
effects of significant ground settlement after completion
of the bridge.
The bridge which is described in this paper consists of
an RC simply-supported slab, supported by a pair of
geosynthetic reinforced soil abutments, as shown in
Fig. 3. This type of construction is effective for the reduc-
tion of construction time and costs, while simultaneously
eliminating the need for the use of heavy construction
machinery as well as alleviating the bumps in front of
 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
Fig. 3. Longitudinal cross-section of newly designed bridge supported by reinforced soil abutments.
Table 1
Geological–geotechnical data obtained from investigations that were performed for a bridge that was located 50 m upstream.
Depth [m] Description
0.0–0.5 Sandy gravel
0.5–3.0 Sandy clay with inclusions of gravel and sand
3.0–5.0 Clayey and silty sand
5.0–8.0 Silty sand
8.0–11.0 Decayed stratified marl
11.0–17.0 Sandy marl
17.0–23.3 Sandy–silty clay
23.3–26.3 Sandy marl–solid
Water level depth: 2.7 m
and behind the bridge, which usually occur due to differen-
tial settlement. A detailed view showing how the bridge
deck rests on the GRS soil abutments is shown in Fig. 4.
Preliminary research including laboratory testing
Within the scope of the available funds of the EU co-
funded research project (‘‘Research voucher”), some pre-
liminary research and laboratory tests were performed
(Lenart, 2014; Lenart et al., 2014) in order to obtain all
the required data for the design of the GRS bridge
abutments.
In the first phase of the testing, the basic characteristics
of the building materials (i.e. the gradation curve and com-
paction properties of the backfill material, and the tensile
strength of the geosynthetic reinforcement) and their
interaction (i.e. the soil-geosynthetic interface strength)
were evaluated.
In the second phase, the results from large scale labora-
tory tests were analysed in order to define the deformation
properties of typical geosynthetic-reinforced soil. A
prismatically-shaped composite specimen (with dimen-
sions of 910
910
2130 mm) made of well compacted
granular backfill reinforced with intermediate geosyn-
thetic layers was constructed. The vertical spacing of the
geosynthetic layers was 30 cm. A confining pressure was
applied to the test specimen by means of a partial vacuum
29
Soil properties
(N1)60 = 6
(N1)60 = 8, c0 = 1.6 kPa, u0 = 25.7°, w = 33.5%, Ip = 14.3%
(N1)60 = 12, w = 29.1%, Ip = 10.4%
(N1)60 = 24
(N1)60 = 36
(N1)60 = 32
of 25 kPa, which corresponded to the expected on-site con-
ditions. The vertical load was then continuously applied to
the top of the specimen in order to define the correspond-
ing stress–strain relationship (Figs. 5–7). The results of
these laboratory tests were analysed so that they could
be properly applied to the in-situ conditions.
Other important properties (maximum shear resis-
tance, initial load curve, and equivalent elastic properties
obtained in the case of very small unloading and reloading
cycles) were analysed in order to take into account their
possible effect on the behaviour of such a composite mate-
rial when used to construct bridge abutments. The test
results have been reported in detail by Lenart (2014).
Design of the bridge abutments
Besides the dead weight of the structure, traffic loads,
too, were taken into account for the design of bridge and
its abutments. The load model LM1, which provides a pair
of tandem axles on each conventional lane (600 kN and
400 kN), accompanied by a uniform load (9 kN/m2 and
2.5 kN/m2), was used, as defined in EN 1991-2: Actions
on structures. Part 2: General actions – traffic loads on
bridges. The bridge superstructure, i.e. slab deck, is sup-
ported directly at the top of the abutment as a simply-
supported beam. A bearing width of 0.85 m was defined.
Due to the limited bearing stress acting on the GRS
30 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
Fig. 4. Detail showing how the bridge deck rests on one of the geosynthetic reinforced soil abutments.
Fig. 5. View of a vertical loading test being performed in the laboratory
on a geosynthetic reinforced soil test specimen.
abutment, the presented solution is, in general, restricted
to bridges with relatively short spans. It should be noted
that this limitation is less evident when the bridge deck
is fully structurally integrated onto the top of the FHR fac-
ings, thus forming a frame-type bridge structure, as is done
in the practice used in Japan.
Fig. 8 shows the calculated bearing stresses due to traf-
fic loads in the case of the bridge across the Pavlovski
potok stream when using the load model LM1. Similarly,
the bearing stresses due to other kind of loads (i.e. dead
weight, temperature differences, traffic accelerations,
etc.) were calculated and combined according to EN
1991-2. It was estimated that the maximum design vertical
pressure amounted to 305 kPa. When this value is com-
pared to the strength achieved in the case of the laboratory
Fig. 6. Stress–strain relationship for a typical sample of the investigated
reinforced soil.
test which was performed on the GRS specimen (Fig. 6), a
safety factor of 2.66 is obtained.
Even though the requirements for the fulfilment of the
ultimate limit state are met, determination of the potential
vertical deformation of the GRS abutments is crucial for
their serviceability. It can be estimated by multiplying
the height of the abutment with the vertical strain
obtained from the performance test (Fig. 6). To make sure
that the slab deck would not bear onto the facings due to
vertical deformation of the GRS abutments, a clear space
needs to be provided between the facings and the bottom
edge of the superstructure (Adams et al., 2010). As, in the
present case, the bridge deck was cast in situ, a layer of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam was used to fill in the
gap (Fig. 9).
Furthermore, other applicable permanent and transient
external pressures and loads (vertical and horizontal) on
the GRS abutment were calculated. The external stability
 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34 31

Fig. 7. Optically measured (GOM Aramis) vertical strain of the GRS specimen at failure.

Fig. 8. Estimated bearing stresses due to traffic loads (load model LM1).

Fig. 10. Construction of the gravel foundation, before wrapping the

foundation with geosynthetics.

Fig. 9. Detail of the space between the top of the facing and bottom of the
Construction of the new bridge
bridge superstructure (i.e. slab deck).

The foundations for the abutments were first built,

of the abutments was evaluated in the design phase by
looking at the possibilities of direct sliding of the abut-
ment, insufficient ground bearing capacity, and global sta-
bility as potential external failure mechanisms.
using well-compacted gravelly soil, which was wrapped-
around with a layer of geosynthetic (Fig. 10). This step
was followed by the construction of the geosynthetic rein-
forced soil mass of the bridge abutments. Each layer of the
geosynthetic (geogrid Miragrid GX 80/80, with a nominal
32 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34

tensile strength of 80 kN/m at an elongation of 10%) was

installed at a vertical spacing of 30 cm, whereas the inter-
mediate layers which were needed at critical positions
(beneath the bridge bearings) were installed at a vertical
spacing of 10 cm.
The load-bearing direction of the geogrid used in this
project was always oriented in a direction perpendicular
to the facing structure in order to ensure good behaviour
of the abutment. The construction procedure for the
retaining structures without the use of a temporary sup-
port system (Fig. 11) involved construction of the bridge
abutments made of geosynthetic-reinforced soil. Partial
pre-stressing of the geogrid, resulting in an increase in
Fig. 12. The measured values of the horizontal strains in one of the
the stiffness of the reinforced soil, was thus achieved dur- geosynthetic layers depending on the distance of the strain gauges from
ing the construction of the abutments. First the geogrid the abutment facing.
was arranged with wrapping around the gabion bags. This
was followed by the placing of the backfill material, which
was then compacted until the required dry density was
achieved. Fig. 12 shows the development of horizontal
strains in the geogrid after compaction of the backfill
material at various distances from the abutment facing. A
high level of pre-stressing of the geogrid was achieved dur-
ing compaction (>0.1%) near the abutment facings.
Both GRS bridge abutments were built within a period
of less than 10 days due to the simplicity of the construc-
tion processes involved (Fig. 13). The concrete facing struc-
tures were built using appropriate formwork and cast-in-
situ concrete. Since the bridge crossed a water channel,
the foundations of the reinforced concrete facings were

Fig. 13. Construction of the GRS abutments by placing gravel bags on the
shoulder of each layer and compaction of the backfill.

located at a depth of 150 cm in order to prevent scouring

beneath the GRS mass. The ends of the horizontal layers
of the geogrid reinforcement were rigidly connected to
the vertical steel reinforcement inside the facing structure
by means of additional strips (anchors) (Fig. 14). In order to
provide scour protection, four wing walls were extended
into a rip-rap structure at the bottom of the water channel.

Fig. 11. (a) Procedure for constructing the retaining structure without the
use of a temporary supporting system, and (b) construction of the full
height rigid (FHR) facings by means of cast-in-situ concrete: A – the initial
shallow foundation (levelling pad) for the facing, B – the gabion bags,
C – the geosynthetic reinforcement layer, D – the backfill material, and H Fig. 14. Detail of the facing before concreting, showing at the front the
– the cast-in-situ concrete facing (after Tatsuoka et al., 1997). already installed tube of a horizontal inclinometer.
 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
Fig. 15. Concreting works of the GRS abutments.
This structure consisted of rocks placed in concrete, and
provided a control channel for the stream, extending for
another 5.0 m from each side of the abutments. The bridge
deck was placed directly on the top of the geosynthetic-
reinforced backfill of the bridge abutments using a thin
layer of embedded concrete (having the width of the bear-
ings). Some of the construction phases of the GRS bridge
abutments are shown in Figs. 13 and 15.
Results of observations and field monitoring
In order to obtain information which would be relevant
to further research into the behaviour of GRS abutments,
strain gauges were attached at some of the installed geo-
grid layers. The strain values in the geogrid could be
directly obtained at the construction site and were
recorded and monitored before and during the installation
of the geogrid, as well as during construction of the abut-
ments (Fig. 12). Monitoring will also take place in the
future in order to evaluate the effect of different types of
loads on the behaviour of GRS abutments.
Up until the end of the construction works, approxi-
mately 1/3rd (1.5 cm) of the final expected settlement
had occurred. In a case of a piled foundation, the rest of
the settlement would probably occur as a differential set-
tlement behind or in front of the bridge. This, however, is
not expected in the case of the bridge presented in this
paper. In order to monitor any uneven settlements in the
Table 2
Comparison of the amounts of concrete needed for bridge abutments at Žerovinci in case of GRS bridge abutments and reinforced concrete abutments.
Element Amounts of concrete needed [m3]
RC abutments
Piles (D = 100 cm L = 24 m) 75
Pile caps (120/120 cm) 23
Abutments (d = 50 cm) 21
Wing walls (d = 30 cm) 7 5
Approach slabs 12
Superstructure 35.5
Total 173.5
33
future, horizontal inclinometers were installed in both
abutments. At the time of writing of this paper only initial
readings had been made.
Some interesting information and data which were
obtained during the construction of the first integrated
GRS bridge with FHR facings in this part of the world are
given below.
Foundations
Considering the geological structure of the ground at
the construction site, in case of conventional reinforced-
concrete bridge abutments, deep piled foundations using
piles with a diameter of 100 cm and a length of 24 m
would have been needed, as in the case of the nearby rail-
way bridge, which is located 50 m upstream. The geosyn-
thetic reinforced soil technology significantly reduced the
construction costs and time.
Concreting works
Piles, pile caps, steel-reinforced concrete abutments,
wing walls of RC retaining structures, and approach slabs
become unnecessary when the described GRS technology
is used, which significantly reduces the amount of concrete
needed. Based on data obtained from the nearby newly-
built railway bridge, which had steel-reinforced concrete
abutments founded on deep piled foundations, the quan-
tity of concrete works needed when constructing such con-
ventional bridge abutments was compared to the case of
the integrated GRS bridge across the Pavlovski potok
stream. The results showed that, in the case of steel-
reinforced concrete abutments, nearly 120 m3 of extra con-
crete would have been needed in comparison with the
geosynthetic reinforced soil abutments (Table 2).
Since less concrete was needed, less formwork, too, was
needed. However, despite that the fact that only single-
sided formwork was needed to construct the facing struc-
ture of the GRS abutments, their implementation was
rather complex since ground with good loadbearing capac-
ity was not available to support the formwork.
In the design, the GRS facings were considered mostly
as a scour protection measure. As the design was based
on the characteristics of a simply-supported beam, struc-
tural integrity between the bridge deck and the facings
was not necessary. The aim was to not increase the vertical
load acting on the abutments due to the self-weight of the
facing structure. For this reason a minimum thickness of
Difference
GRS abutments [m3] [%]
– 75 100
– 23 100
9 12 57.1
2 28.5
– 12 100
42 6.5 18.3
56 117.5 67.7
34 S. Lenart et al. / Transportation Geotechnics 8 (2016) 26–34
the facing structure, equal to 15 cm, was decided upon.
Also, minimum structural reinforcement was installed in
the facings in order to ensure their rigidity and to prevent
the occurrence of any kind of cracks in the concrete
(Fig. 14).
In order to ensure uniform thickness of the facing struc-
ture (15 cm) throughout the whole height of the abutment,
the gabion bags have to be placed in their outer vertical
position very precisely, with only small deviations. This is
because, when vibrating the cast-in-situ concrete, addi-
tional problems can arise, in the case of relatively thin RC
facing structures, if the front face of the gabion bags is
not precisely achieved. In order to avoid such problems,
in the presented case self-compacting concrete was used.
It should be noted that this problem becomes less serious
when the thickness of the FHR facings is increased, e.g. to
30 cm, which corresponds to the practice in Japan.
Static load design
Since the bridge deck is constructed as a slab which is
simply-supported by a pair of GRS abutments, the internal
mid-span bending moment line is much greater than in the
case of a frame structure. Thus more reinforcement is
needed in the lower zone, and less in the upper zone. Also,
a longer RC slab has to be provided in order to provide the
necessary bearing area.
Construction time
The time needed to construct the GRS abutments was
significantly reduced due to the simple construction pro-
cesses and techniques in comparison with steel-
reinforced concrete abutments. GRS bridge abutments
can be constructed within a couple of weeks without being
influenced by outside weather conditions. Taking into
account the provisions of the Slovenian legislation, con-
crete bridge decks have to be constructed in the conven-
tional way using formwork, steel-reinforcement, and
cast-in-situ concrete. In the case of high water levels,
pumping from excavated areas may also be needed when
following this conventional construction method. The use
of precast concrete (PC) bridge decks is not allowed in
Slovenia. However, the use of such PC bridge decks would
significantly reduce the construction time in this kind of
project, with a short span bridge.
Conclusions
The first GRS integrated bridge with FHR facings in Eur-
ope was constructed across the Pavlovski potok stream in
the village of Žerovinci at the end of 2014. Its design was
accompanied by very short deadlines and a thick layer of
soft foundation soil, where deep pile foundations would
become necessary in the case of the conventional type of
abutments, using steel-reinforced concrete. Due to the lack
of previous experience with the staged construction of GRS
RW with FHR facings, the authors decided to combine this
technology, which is widely used in Japan, with the GRS
integrated bridge system construction approach presented
by the FHWA (USA). Thus the bridge system consists of a
bridge deck which is placed on top of the GRS, immediately
behind the FHR facings, i.e. it is acts as a simply-supported
beam with its ends supported on a pair of GRS abutments.
The experience gained from the design and construction of
the bridge presented in this paper indicates the many sig-
nificant advantages of GRS bridge abutments compared to
conventional steel-reinforced concrete cantilevered abut-
ments. The presented solution is beneficial particularly
for short span bridges that need to be designed and built
in a very short time.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper are especially grateful to the
Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and
Sport, which enabled the research and development of
the presented technology by co-funding the research pro-
jects of Slovenian companies (‘‘Research voucher”) in
2013 and 2014. Special thanks also go to the construction
company Pomgrad, d. d., which built the bridge described
in the paper. Last but not least, the authors would like to
express their thanks to Professor Fumio Tatsuoka for his
valuable advice and encouraging approach during the
design and construction of the presented bridge.
References
Adams MT, Lillis CP, Wu JTH, Ketchart K. Vegas mini pier experiment and
postulate of zero volume change. In: Proc. 7th int. conf. on
geosynthetics, Nice, France. p. 389–94.
Adams MT, Nicks JE, Stabile T, Wu JTH, Schlatter W, Hartmann J.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system – interim
implementation guide, report no. FHWA-HRT-11-026. McLean,
VA: FHWA; 2010.
Brady KC. Performance of a reinforced earth bridge abutment at
Carmarthen, Research report III, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire; 1987.
DRD. Reinforced soil slopes ensure faster and cheaper bridge
construction, <http://www.niras.com/current-events/news/2014>,
2014 [as on 13.05.2014].
Helwany SMB, Wu JTH, Froessl B. GRS bridge abutments – an effective
means to alleviate bridge approach settlement. Geotext Geomembr
2003;21(3):177–96.
Herold A. The first permanent road-bridge abutment in Germany built of
geosynthetic-reinforced earth. Nizza: International Geosynthetics
Society; 2002.
Lenart S. Final report about the development of reinforced soil bridge
abutments, P 320/13-710-8. Department of Geotechnics and
Infrastructure, ZAG Ljubljana – the Slovenian National Building and
Civil Engineering Institute; 2014 [in Slovenian].
Lenart S, Koseki J, Miyashita Y, Sato T. Large-scale triaxial tests of dense
gravel material at low confining pressures. Soil Found 2014;54
(1):45–55.
Tatsuoka F, Tateyama M, Uchimura T, Koseki J. Geosynthetic-reinforced
soil retaining walls as important permanent structures, Mercer
Lecture. Geosynth Int 1997;4(2):81–136.
Tatsuoka F, Hirakawa D, Nojiri M, Aizawa H, Nishikiori H, Soma R,
Tateyama M, Watanabe K. A new type of integral bridge comprising
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynth Int 2009;16(4):301–26.
Vidal H. Reinforced Earth. Paris: Annales de I’Institut Technique du
Batiment et des Travaux Publics; 1972.
Wu JTH, Lee KZZ, Pham T. Allowable bearing pressure of bridge sills on
GRS abutments with flexible facing. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2006;132(7):836–41.