Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) abutments have emerged as innovative improvement measures over the conventional GRS walls. Being an internally stabilized composite structure subjected to heavy stresses adjacent to facing, proper selection of GRS abutments in field is very important. Over the years, various design philosophies have been formulated in respect of GRS abutments but proper selection to a specific problem remains undiscussed. The present study attempts to conduct comparative analysis of stability of 5 types of chronologically evolved GRS bridge abutments (BA) namely BA I, BA II, BA III, BA IV and BA V through 1 g model tests (5 types are defined later) with special emphasis given to the influence of type of facing and configuration of reinforcements. A total of 75 model tests on 1/5th (N = 5) scaled down abutments have been performed to evaluate the effects of footing width (B), footing offset (x), facing type and abutment type on serviceable bearing capacity, ultimate bearing capacity, footing settlement, horizontal displacement of facing, tilting of footing, rotation and buckling of facing. The serviceability criteria based on FHWA recommendation has been chosen to ascertain field suitability of the model. An interesting mechanism correlating footing tilt (positive and negative) with movement of facing has been hypothesized and validated by the failure mode observed at the facing of the abutments. The abutments with modular facing were found to be more stable as compared to continuous facing. The footing width ratio (B/H) > 0.2 with footing offset ratio (x/H) > 0.3 (where, H is height of abutment) was found to be more suitable for field application. The degree of tilt, facing rotation, buckling behavior and differential settlement of footing were minimum for BA V. Based on all response parameters, BA V having modular facing with secondary reinforcements in the bearing bed performed exceedingly well in withstanding serviceable bearing pressures while sustaining larger footing settlements and resisting horizontal displacements of facing, followed by BA IV, BA III, BA II and BA I.
Read full abstract