Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical
Earthquake
Engineering and
Soil Dynamics V
Slope Stability and Landslides,
Laboratory Testing,
and In Situ Testing
GSP 293
Papers from Sessions of Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V
EDITED BY
Austin, Texas
June 10–13, 2018
Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E.
Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIAL
PUBLICATION
NO.
293
GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS V
SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDES, LABORATORY
TESTING, AND IN SITU TESTING
SELECTED PAPERS FROM SESSIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS V
June 10–13, 2018
Austin, Texas
SPONSORED BY
Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
EDITED BY
Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E.
Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D.
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382
www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process,
or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by
ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of
ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any
kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or
utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and
assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used
without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or
specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such
use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE
publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to
[email protected] or by locating a
title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library
(http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link.
Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481486
Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-8148-6 (PDF)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Preface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This volume is one of four Geotechnical Special Publications (GSPs) containing papers
from the Fifth Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference:
(GEESDV) held in Austin, Texas during June 10–13, 2018. The GEESDV is the latest
event in a series of highly successful conferences held in Sacramento CA (2008),
Seattle WA (1998), Park City UT (1988), and Pasadena CA (1978). The conference is
organized by the Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Technical Committee of
the Geo-Institute (G-I) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and brings
together practicing geo-professionals, researchers, and students from around the world
to share the latest advances, engineering applications, and pedagogical approaches in
this discipline.
This Geotechnical Special Publication is the outcome of two years of concerted efforts
by the conference lead organizers and the members of the “technical program” and
“proceedings” committees. All submitted papers were reviewed and accepted by at
least two independent peer-reviewers. The final accepted technical papers are
organized in the following special publications:
Volume 1: Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation
Volume 2: Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthquake Ground Motions, and RegionalScale Assessment
Volume 3: Numerical Modeling and Soil Structure Interaction
Volume 4: Slope Stability and Landslides, Laboratory Testing, and In Situ Testing
The Editors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the members of the
technical program and proceedings committees as well as the session chairs and
reviewers.
The Editors,
Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Acknowledgments
The organizing committee would like to thank the authors, reviewers, session chairs,
ASCE staff, and OmniPress staff, without whom this publication would not be possible.
GEESDV Conference Program Committee
Conference Chair
Ellen M. Rathje, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, University of Texas at Austin
© ASCE
iii
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Conference Co-Chair
Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Virginia Tech
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technical Program Chair
Scott J. Brandenberg, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of California Los Angeles
Proceedings Chair
Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE, George Washington University
Technical Program Committee
Shideh Dashti, Ph.D, AM.ASCE, University of Colorado at Boulder
Ramin Motamed, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Nevada, Reno
Scott M. Olson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Illinois
Brady R. Cox, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE, University of Texas
Proceedings Committee
Tong Qiu, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Pennsylvania State University
Namasivayam (Sathi) Sathialingam, Ph.D, P.E., G.E., D.GE., F.ASCE, Fugro
Consultants, Inc.
Mahdi Taiebat, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of British Columbia
Short Course / Student Programs Co-Chairs
Dimitrios Zekkos, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Michigan
Christopher E. Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., M.ASCE, Geosyntec Consultants
Student and Younger Member Activities Chair
Menzer Pehlivan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, CH2M
Sponsorships and Exhibits Chair
Thaleia Travasarou, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., M.ASCE, Consultant
GEESDV Topics and Session Chairs
Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation
Katerina Ziotopoulou, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of California, Davis
Shideh Dashti, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Colorado at Boulder
Brett Maurer, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Washington
Mourad Zeghal, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Laurie G. Baise, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Tufts University
Kevin W. Franke, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Brigham Young University
Arash Khosravifar, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Portland State University
© ASCE
iv
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Soil Structure Interaction
Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D., A,M.ASCE, University of California, Irvine
Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Oregon State University
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ground Motion and Site Response
Dong Youp Kwak, Ph.D., RMS
James Kaklamanos, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Merrimack College
Albert R. Kottke, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Pacific Gas and Electric
Ramin Motamed, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Nevada, Reno
Regional Scale Assessment of GeoHazards
Qiushi Chen, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Clemson University
Seismic Hazard Assessment
Sebastiano Foti, Ph.D., Politecnico di Torino
Recent Advances In Situ Site Characterization
Thaleia Travasarou, Ph.D., G.E., M.ASCE, Fugro Consultants, Inc.
Seismic Slope Stability and Landslides
Jennifer Donahue, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, JL Donahue Engineering, Inc.
Jack Montgomery, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Auburn University
Recent Advances in Numerical Modeling
Giuseppe Buscarnera, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE, Northwestern University
Mahdi Taiebat, Ph.D., P.Eng, M.ASCE, University of British Columbia
Majid T. Manzari, Ph.D., M.ASCE, The George Washington University
Usama S. El Shamy, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Southern Methodist University
Recent Advances in Laboratory Testing
Inthuorn Sasanakul, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of South Carolina
Brad P. Wham, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of Colorado
Scott M. Olson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Illinois, Urbana
Mark Stringer, Ph.D., M.ASCE, University of Canterbury
© ASCE
v
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Contents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Slope Stability and Landslides
Acceleration Response of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment
under Dynamic Loading ................................................................................................................1
Yewei Zheng, John S. McCartney, Patrick J. Fox, and P. Benson Shing
Bridge Foundation Pinning Resistance Implied by Equivalent Static
Analysis Procedure for Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading ..........................................10
Christopher R. McGann
Cloud-Based Tools for the Probabilistic Assessment of the Seismic
Performance of Slopes .................................................................................................................19
Gökhan Saygili, Ellen M. Rathje, Yubing Wang, and Mahmoud El-Kishky
Development of a Seismic Risk Screening Tool for Earthen Embankments .........................27
Jennifer L. Donahue, Zahra A. Amini, Christopher E. Hunt, Glenn J. Rix,
and David R. Umberg
Dynamic Numerical Evaluation of the Effect of the Retained Tailings on
the Performance of a Tailings Impoundment ...........................................................................37
Guillaume Léveillé and Michael James
Effect of Local Site Condition on the Seismic Stability of Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills.............................................................................................................................46
Anindya Pain, V. S. Ramakrishna Annapareddy, and Shantanu Sarkar
Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of a Class I Landfill ..................................................56
Glenn J. Rix, Robert C. Bachus, Chris Conkle, and Mark Schultheis
Numerical Simulations of the Fourth Avenue Landslide Considering
Strain-Softening ...........................................................................................................................67
Michael Kiernan and Jack Montgomery
Seismic Stability Analysis of Soil Slopes Using Soil Nails ........................................................79
Pankaj Rawat and Kaustav Chatterjee
SEM-Based Seismic Slope Stability and Mitigation Model for the Jure
Landslide after the 7.8Mw 2015 Barpak-Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake ..................................88
N. P. Bhandary, R. C. Tiwari, R. Yatabe, and S. Paudel
The Takanodai Landslide, Kumamoto, Japan: Insights from Post-Earthquake
Field Observations, Laboratory Tests, and Numerical Analyses ............................................98
Gabriele Chiaro, Mohammed Umar, Takashi Kiyota, and Christopher Massey
© ASCE
vi
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Laboratory Testing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A Critique of b-Values Used for Computing Magnitude Scaling Factors ............................112
Kristin J. Ulmer, Sneha Upadhyaya, Russell A. Green, Adrian Rodriguez-Marek,
Peter J. Stafford, Julian J. Bommer, and Jan van Elk
Comparing Shear Response of Dense Sands from Centrifuge and Direct Simple
Shear Tests with Published Correlations .................................................................................122
Lopamudra Bhaumik, Alfonso A. Cerna-Diaz, Ozgun A. Numanoglu,
Scott M. Olson, Cassandra J. Rutherford, Youssef M. A. Hashash,
and Thomas Weaver
Comparison of Cyclic Triaxial Test Results on Sand-Rubber Tire Shred
Mixtures with Dynamic Simple Shear Test Results................................................................132
B. R. Madhusudhan, A. Boominathan, and Subhadeep Banerjee
Comparison of Measured Cyclic Resistance of Sand in Simple Shear Tests
under Constant Volume versus Constant Total Vertical Stress Conditions ........................141
Chadi El Mohtar, Yuta Nakamura, and Wing Shun Kwan
Comparisons in the Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Response of Two Sands from
Christchurch, New Zealand ......................................................................................................150
Claudio Cappellaro, Misko Cubrinovski, Jonathan D. Bray, Gabriele Chiaro,
Michael F. Riemer, and Mark E. Stringer
Cyclic Behavior at Small Shear Deformations of Non-Liquefiable Sand
Ground Obtained from Horizontal 1-D and 2-D E-Defense Tests ........................................160
Kentaro Tabata and Masayoshi Sato
Cyclic Behavior of Low-Plasticity Fine-Grained Soils with Varying
Pore-Fluid Salinity .....................................................................................................................171
Mohammad M. Eslami, Scott J. Brandenberg, and Jonathan P. Stewart
Cyclic Strength of Ottawa F-65 Sand: Laboratory Testing and Constitutive
Model Calibration ......................................................................................................................180
Katerina Ziotopoulou, Jack Montgomery, Ana Maria Parra Bastidas,
and Brian Morales
Dynamic Failure Potential of Partially Saturated Sand under Ultra-Low
Confining Pressures ...................................................................................................................190
Oliver-Denzil S. Taylor, Katherine E. Winters, Woodman W. Berry,
and Merissa L. Zuzulock
Dynamic Response of Model Footing on Reinforced Sand ....................................................199
Raghvendra Sahu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman,
and G. V. Ramana
© ASCE
vii
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Effect of High Initial Effective Confining Stress on the Mechanical
Response of Natural Silt ............................................................................................................208
Priyesh Verma and Dharma Wijewickreme
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Effect of Pore Fluid on Cyclic Behaviour of Reconstituted Marine Clay .............................219
Swagatika Senapati, Subhadeep Banerjee, and T. Thyagaraj
Effects of Ageing on the Shear Modulus Degradation Curve of Loose
Fraser River Sand ......................................................................................................................228
Ilaibibakam W. Omunguye, John A. Howie, and Mark A. Styler
Effects of Confining Pressure and Void Ratio on the Maximum Shear
Modulus of Natural Pumiceous Soils .......................................................................................238
M. B. Asadi, M. S. Asadi, R. P. Orense, and M. J. Pender
Effects of Multi-Directional and Repeated Loading on Cyclic Resistance
of Fraser River Sand ..................................................................................................................247
Stephen Jones and Abouzar Sadrekarimi
Experimental Study of Strain Dependent Shear Modulus of Ottawa
Sand .............................................................................................................................................257
Kaveh H. Zehtab, Seda Gokyer, Artur Apostolov, W. Allen Marr,
and Salim K. Werden
Experimental Study of the Injectability and Effectiveness of Laponite
Mixtures as Liquefaction Mitigation Technique.....................................................................267
Lucia Mele, Alessandro Flora, Stefania Lirer, Anna d’Onofrio,
and Emilio Bilotta
Hazard-Resilient Pipeline Joint Soil-Structure Interaction under
Large Axial Displacement .........................................................................................................276
Brad P. Wham, Blake A. Berger, Chalermpat Pariya-Ekkasut,
and Thomas D. O’Rourke
Importance of Automatization on Dry Funnel Deposited Specimens
for Liquefaction Testing ............................................................................................................286
M. Murat Monkul, Şenay Yenigün, and Ece Eseller-Bayat
Initial Observations on Laboratory Shear Loading Response of
Sand-Silt Mixtures .....................................................................................................................296
Achala Soysa and Dharma Wijewickreme
Laboratory Study of Sands Reinforced with Polypropylene Fibers .....................................307
H. Li, K. Senetakis, and A. Khoshghalb
Liquefaction Potential of Sand with Non-Plastic Fines with the Same
Depositional Energy ...................................................................................................................319
Yolanda Alberto and Ikuo Towhata
© ASCE
viii
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Modification of Stokoe-Type Resonant Column and Torsional Shear
Testing Device for Measurements at Higher Strains ..............................................................326
Inthuorn Sasanakul, Yoon Shin Bae, and James Bay
Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipated Energy Ratio in Cohesionless
Soils..............................................................................................................................................336
Carmine P. Polito and Henry H. M. Moldenhauer
Post-Cyclic Behavior of a Gulf of Mexico Clay .......................................................................345
Vashish Taukoor, Cassandra J. Rutherford, and Scott M. Olson
Processing, Visualization, and Analysis of Direct Simple Shear Test Data
Using Jupyter Notebooks in the DesignSafe Cyberinfrastructure ........................................357
Mohammad M. Eslami, Ai Zhong, and Scott J. Brandenberg
Shear Strength Characteristics of Internal Bentonite Layer of
Needle-Punched GCL Used in Small Earth Dams under Cyclic Loading ............................365
R. Shigemoto, Y. Sawada, R. Maki, and T. Kawabata
The Relation between Static Young’s Modulus and Dynamic Bulk
Modulus of Granular Materials and the Role of Stress History ...........................................373
Amin Gheibi and Ahmadreza Hedayat
Twenty-Four Centrifuge Tests to Quantify Sensitivity of Lateral
Spreading to Dr and PGA .........................................................................................................383
Bruce L. Kutter, Trevor J. Carey, Bao Li Zheng, Andreas Gavras,
Nicholas Stone, Mourad Zeghal, Tarek Abdoun, Evangelia Korre,
Majid Manzari, Gopal S. P. Madabhushi, Stuart Haigh,
Srikanth S. C. Madabhushi, Mitsu Okamura, Asri Nurani Sjafuddin,
Sandra Escoffier, Dong-Soo Kim, Seong-Nam Kim, Jeong-Gon Ha,
Tetsuo Tobita, Hikaru Yatsugi, Kyohei Ueda, Ruben R. Vargas,
Wen-Yi Hung, Ting-Wei Liao, Yan-Guo Zhou, and Kai Liu
Undisturbed Sampling of Pumiceous Deposits in New Zealand ............................................394
M. E. Stringer, R. P. Orense, M. J. Pender, and I. Haycock
In Situ Site Characterization
Bayesian Estimation of Nonlinear Soil Model Parameters Using
Centrifuge Experimental Data..................................................................................................404
Elnaz Esmaeilzadeh Seylabi, Hamed Ebrahimian, Wenyang Zhang,
Domniki Asimaki, and Ertugrul Taciroglu
Determination of Shear Strength Parameters Using Screw Driving
Sounding (SDS) ..........................................................................................................................414
S. Yasin Mirjafari, Rolando P. Orense, and Naoaki Suemasa
© ASCE
ix
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Downhole Seismic Testing within Existing Steel Cased Sonic
Boreholes .....................................................................................................................................423
Viji Fernando, Yannick Wittwer, Rob Luzitano, and Trevor Fitzell
Evaluating Compaction Quality during Earth Dam Construction
Using Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave .....................................................................432
Sheng-Huoo Ni, Wen-Jong Chang, Yu-Zhang Yang, and En-Shuo Fan
Experiments Using a UAV-Deployed Impulsive Source for
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves Testing ...................................................................443
William W. Greenwood, Hao Zhou, Dimitrios Zekkos,
and Jerome P. Lynch
In Situ Testing for Evaluation of Modulus Reduction and Damping
of Municipal Solid Waste at a Hazardous Waste Landfill .....................................................452
Neven Matasovic, Dimitrios Zekkos, Andhika Sahadewa,
and Clinton P. Carlson
Machine Learning Applications for Site Characterization Based
on CPT Data ...............................................................................................................................461
Dimitra Tsiaousi, Thaleia Travasarou, Vasilis Drosos, Jose Ugalde,
and Jacob Chacko
Measured and Predicted VS Values of a Granular Backfill Test Pad ...................................473
Kenneth H. Stokoe II, Sungmoon Hwang, Michael Boone,
Michael R. Lewis, Yaning Wang, Matthew F. Cooke, and Andrew Keene
Probabilistic Geotechnical Site Characterization from Geophysical
Measurements Using Model-Data Fusion................................................................................489
Siddharth S. Parida, Kallol Sett, and Puneet Singla
Robust Earthquake Site Characterization at Ontario Bridge Sites ......................................499
A. Bilson Darko, S. Molnar, and A. Sadrekarimi
Selecting Moduli Reduction and Damping Curves Based on Cone
Penetration Test Soil Behaviour Type .....................................................................................509
Mark A. Styler, John Rogie, and Ilmar Weemees
Site Characterization of TexNet Seismic Stations Using Different
Geophysical Approaches ...........................................................................................................518
Alexandros Savvaidis, Ellen Rathje, Brady Cox, Zalachoris George,
Tiwari Ayushi, Michael Yust, and Bissett Young
© ASCE
x
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Acceleration Response of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment under Dynamic
Loading
Yewei Zheng, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; John S. McCartney, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2; Patrick J. Fox,
Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE3; and P. Benson Shing, Ph.D., M.ASCE4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA 92093-0085. E-mail:
[email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
CA 92093-0085. E-mail:
[email protected]
3
Shaw Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State
Univ., University Park, PA 16802. E-mail:
[email protected]
4
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
CA 92093-0085. E-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper presents results from dynamic testing of a half-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil
(GRS) bridge abutment using a shaking table, with the goal of understanding the acceleration
response of the backfill soil, bridge seat, and bridge beam under dynamic loading. The GRS
bridge abutment model was constructed using modular facing blocks, well-graded angular sand
backfill, and uniaxial geogrid reinforcement in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. A
series of input motions was applied to the GRS bridge abutment system in the direction
longitudinal to the bridge beam. The horizontal accelerations increase with elevation in the
reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone. The average peak acceleration of the reinforced soil
zone is slightly greater than the calculated value from the current design guidelines, indicating
that the guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative. The acceleration response spectrum for
the bridge beam indicates a slight attenuation compared with that of the bridge seat, likely due to
the isolation effect of an elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge beam and bridge seat.
INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) bridge abutments are widely used in transportation
infrastructure. However, the performance of this technology in high seismicity areas like
California is uncertain due to the complex interactions between the reinforced soil mass, the
bridge seat, and the bridge beam that provides a confining effect but adds inertial effects. Due to
a prior lack of experimental data on the seismic response of these structures, the existing design
guidelines are still preliminary and are primarily based on observations for GRS walls.
Experimental and numerical studies have been conducted on the response of GRS bridge
abutments for static loading conditions (Abu-Hejleh et al. 2002; Wu et al. 2001, 2006; Helwany
et al. 2003, 2007; Zheng and Fox 2016, 2017; Saghebfar et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2018).
However, fewer studies have investigated the response of GRS bridge abutments for dynamic
loading conditions. Helwany et al. (2012) performed shaking table tests on a 3.6 m-high GRS
bridge abutment subjected to a series of horizontal sinusoidal motions with increasing amplitude
in the longitudinal direction. No damage was observed for horizontal accelerations up to 0.67g at
which time several bottom blocks near the corners had minor cracks, and the abutment remained
functional with more damage to the bottom corner blocks when the horizontal acceleration was
further increased to 1.0g. Zheng et al. (2017) reported results from shaking table tests on a 2.7 m-
© ASCE
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
high half-scale GRS bridge abutment for shaking in the longitudinal direction, and observed
relatively small residual deformations after earthquake motions with peak horizontal
accelerations (PHA) of 0.31g and 0.40g. Although these experimental studies indicate that GRS
bridge abutments may have satisfactory performance regarding deformations under dynamic
loading, it is necessary to further evaluate the potential acceleration amplification in these
systems. The acceleration response in the GRS bridge abutment is important because, during an
earthquake, the retained fill exerts a dynamic thrust on the reinforced soil zone and the reinforced
soil zone is subjected to an inertial force, which should be adequately accounted for in the
external and internal stability evaluation. To address this need, this paper presents results and
analysis on the acceleration response from shaking table tests on a GRS bridge abutment
previous reported by Zheng et al. (2017).
SHAKING TABLE TESTS
The shaking table test was conducted using the indoor shaking table at the University of
California, San Diego (UCSD) Powell Structural Laboratory. Considering the size and payload
capacity of the shaking table, a length scaling factor of = 2 was selected, defined as the ratio of
prototype length to model length. In this study, the similitude relationships proposed by Iai (1989)
were used for the half-scale shaking table tests. The model geometry, geosynthetic reinforcement
stiffness, backfill soil modulus, bridge surcharge stress, and characteristics of the earthquake
motions were scaled accordingly.
Model Configuration
The shaking table test configuration for the GRS bridge abutment system is shown in Zheng
et al. (2017). The GRS bridge abutment was constructed on the shaking table and had modular
block facing on three sides, including a front wall facing perpendicular to the longitudinal
direction and two side wall facings perpendicular to the transverse direction. The back of the
GRS bridge abutment was supported by a rigid reaction wall consisting of a steel frame with
plywood face. The bridge beam was placed on a bridge seat that rested on the GRS bridge
abutment at one end and on a concrete support wall that rested on a sliding platform at the other
end. The bottom of the concrete support wall was rigidly connected to the shaking table using
steel connection beams to transmit motions from the shaking table. The shaking table test
represents the case where the ground beneath the bridge abutment is relatively rigid and
transmits the rock motions directly to the GRS bridge abutment without amplification.
A top view diagram and cross-sectional view diagrams in the longitudinal and transverse
directions for the GRS bridge abutment model are shown in Figure 1. The GRS bridge abutment
has a total height of 2.7 m, consisting of a 2.1 m-high lower GRS wall and a 0.6 m-high upper
wall, resting on a 0.15 m-thick foundation soil layer. The lower GRS wall was constructed in
fourteen 0.15 m-thick soil lifts. Each 0.15 m-thick lift includes one layer of longitudinal
reinforcement and two layers of transverse reinforcements. The longitudinal reinforcement layers
are frictionally connected to the front wall facing and extend 1.47 m into the backfill soil, and the
transverse reinforcement layers are frictionally connected to each side wall facing and extend 0.8
m into the backfill soil (meet but not connected in the center). The transverse reinforcement
layers and side wall facing blocks are offset by 25 mm vertically from the longitudinal
reinforcement layers and front wall facing blocks to avoid direct contact between longitudinal
and transverse geogrid layers and maintain interaction between the geogrid and backfill soil.
© ASCE
2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Figure 1. GRS bridge abutment model: (a) top view; (b) longitudinal cross-sectional view
(showing locations of the accelerometers); (c) transverse cross-sectional view.
The bridge seat rests on top of the backfill soil for the lower GRS wall and has a setback
distance of 0.15 m from each of the three wall facings. Elastomeric bearing pads with a thickness
of 25 mm were placed under both ends of the bridge beam. The bridge superstructures (i.e.,
bridge beam and additional dead weights) have a total weight of 98 kN, which produces an
average vertical stress of 121 kPa on the bridge seat top surface. The average applied vertical
stress on the backfill soil from the bridge seat bottom surface is 66 kPa, which corresponds to a
prototype vertical stress of 132 kPa and is in the typical range for GRS bridge abutments in the
field (Adams et al. 2011).
© ASCE
3
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
4
0.4
Original
Scaled
0.3
Acceleration (g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Peak = 0.31g
-0.4
0
5
10
15
20
Time (s)
25
30
35
40
Figure 2. Acceleration time histories of the original record and scaled motion for the 1940
Imperial Valley Earthquake (El Centro station).
Material Properties
The backfill soil is a well-graded sand and has a relatively flat compaction curve. The target
soil compaction conditions for construction of the GRS bridge abutment model were gravimetric
water content of 5% and relative density of Dr = 70%. The target relative density was selected to
meet the similitude relationships and to obtain reproducible densities using a vibrating plate
compactor. The details of the selection of target compaction conditions are discussed in Zheng
(2017). The dry backfill sand at Dr = 70% has a peak friction angle of 51.3° and zero cohesion
according to results from triaxial compression tests.
The geosynthetic reinforcement is a uniaxial high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid
(Tensar LH800). The geogrid has secant stiffness at 5% strain J5% = 380 kN/m and ultimate
strength Tult = 38 kN/m in the machine direction, and J5% = 80 kN/m and Tult = 4 kN/m in the
cross-machine direction. The tensile stiffness of this geogrid corresponds to a value of 1520
kN/m for the prototype geogrid (scaling factor = 4), which is typically used for field structures.
The geogrid reinforcement layer was placed between the facing blocks. Fiberglass pins were
inserted through the geogrid apertures to assist with block alignment and are not expected to
enhance the block-geogrid connection, which was essentially frictional.
Instrumentation and Input Motions
The instrumentation locations are shown in Figures 1(b) and 1(c). Horizontal coordinate x is
measured toward the south side from the back of the front wall in the longitudinal centerline
section (Figure 1b), horizontal coordinate yw is measured toward the east from the west side wall
facing in the transverse section (Figure 1c), and vertical coordinate z is measured upward from
the top surface of the foundation soil. Accelerometers were placed within the reinforced soil
zone (x = 0.48 m) and retained soil zone (x = 1.67 m) and attached on the wall facing and
structures to measure horizontal accelerations for the longitudinal centerline section, as shown in
Figure 1(b). Accelerations toward the north (see orientations in Figure 1) are defined as positive.
A series of white noise and earthquake motions were applied to the GRS bridge abutment system
in the longitudinal direction. The earthquake motions were scaled according to the similitude
relationships of Iai (1989), in which the frequencies were scaled down by a factor of 2 while the
acceleration amplitude remains the same. Although several earthquake motions were applied to
© ASCE
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
5
Horizontal Acceleration (g)
Reinforced soil zone
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
z = 0.975 m
z = 0.075 m
0
4
8
12
16
Time (s)
20
24
Retained soil zone
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
0.6
0.3
0
-0.3
-0.6
z = 1.875 m
28
z = 1.875 m
z = 0.975 m
z = 0.075 m
0
4
8
12
16
Time (s)
20
24
28
Figure 3. Acceleration time histories in the reinforced soil zone and retained soil zone.
2.0
1.5
Elevation, z (m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
this model, this paper focuses on the acceleration response of the GRS bridge abutment subjected
to the 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake (El Centro station). The original record and scaled
motion applied to the model are shown in Figure 2. The actual shaking table response for this test
reproduced the major characteristics of the target scaled motion and had a PHA of 0.40g, which
is larger than the target value of 0.31g.
1.0
0.5
Wall facing
Reinforced soil zone
Retained soil zone
0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Peak Acceleration Amplification Ratio
1.6
Figure 4. Peak acceleration amplification ratio profiles in the GRS bridge abutment.
TEST RESULTS
Horizontal acceleration time histories at selected elevations in the reinforced soil zone and
retained soil zone for the longitudinal centerline section are shown in Figure 3. Data show that
the horizontal accelerations in the backfill soil increase with elevation in both the reinforced and
retained soil zones, and indicate acceleration amplification toward the top of the GRS bridge
abutment. The magnitudes of acceleration at the same elevations in the reinforced soil zone and
retained soil zone are similar. The peak accelerations at the top (z = 1.875 m) of the GRS bridge
© ASCE
6
abutment are 0.58g and 0.57g for the reinforced and retained soil zones, respectively.
The peak acceleration amplification profiles for the wall facing, reinforced soil zone, and
retained soil zone, normalized by the actual peak acceleration of the shaking table (0.40g), are
shown in Figure 4. Results indicate that the peak accelerations increase with elevation for all
three sections. The amplification ratios for the wall facing are larger than for the reinforced and
retained soil zones, which is likely due to the lower confinement for the facing blocks compared
to the reinforced and retained soil zones. The height average peak accelerations are 0.47g and
0.46g for the reinforced and retained soil zones, respectively, corresponding to amplification
ratios of 1.18 and 1.16. The slightly greater value for the reinforced soil zone could be due to the
greater confinement by the bridge load.
2.5
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Shaking table
z = 0.075 m - reinforced soil zone
z = 0.975 m - reinforced soil zone
z = 1.875 m - reinforced soil zone
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0.1
1
10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping) in the reinforced soil zone.
During an earthquake, the reinforced soil zone is subjected to an inertial force, which should
be accounted for in the external and internal stability evaluation. In the seismic design guidelines
(The Reinforced Earth Company 1995; AASHTO 2012), the average peak acceleration for the
active portion of the reinforced soil zone is Am = (1.45 - A)*A, where A is the PHA (0.40g for this
test). The measured average peak acceleration of 0.47g for the reinforced soil zone is slightly
greater than the calculated value of 0.42g according to the design guidelines, which indicates that
the design guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative.
The acceleration response spectra (5% damping) at different elevations in the reinforced soil
zone are shown in Figure 5. The acceleration response spectrum at the bottom (z = 0.075 m) of
the GRS bridge abutment is essentially the same as that from the shaking table motion. However,
the motion was significantly amplified at the mid-height (z = 0.975 m) and the top (z = 1.875 m)
of the abutment, especially in the frequency range around 7 Hz. This further indicates the
acceleration amplification in the reinforced soil zone.
Time histories of horizontal acceleration for the bridge seat and bridge beam are shown in
Figure 6. The bridge seat had a peak acceleration of 0.63g, while the bridge beam had a smaller
peak acceleration of 0.53g, which correspond to peak acceleration amplification ratios of 1.58
and 1.33, respectively. The bridge seat is typically treated as a gravity retaining wall for external
stability evaluation in the seismic design. Accelerations for the bridge seat and bridge beam are
assumed to be the same as the PHA in the seismic design guidelines recommended by the
Reinforced Earth Company (1995) due to limited information. However, results from this study
indicate that the peak accelerations for the bridge seat and bridge beam are greater than the PHA
© ASCE
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
7
due to significant acceleration amplification in the reinforced soil zone (Figures 4 and 5).
0.8
Horizontal Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
Peak = 0.53g
-0.6
-0.8
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Time (s)
Figure 6. Acceleration time histories for the bridge seat and bridge beam.
2.5
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bridge seat
Bridge beam
Peak = 0.63g
0.6
Shaking table
Bridge seat
Bridge beam
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0.1
1
10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping) for the bridge seat and bridge
beam.
The acceleration response spectra for the bridge seat and bridge beam are shown in Figure 7.
The response spectrum for the bridge seat is similar to that observed for the top of the GRS
bridge abutment (z = 1.875 m in Figure 5). However, the response spectrum for the bridge beam
indicates a slight attenuation compared with the bridge seat but still shows strong amplification
in the frequency range around 4 Hz. This may be attributed to the isolation effect of the
elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge seat and bridge beam and indicate that the
elastomeric bearing pad might attenuate the motion transmitted from the bridge seat.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents results of acceleration response from a shaking table test on a half-scale
GRS bridge abutment with modular block facing. The GRS bridge abutment was constructed
using well-graded backfill sand and uniaxial geogrid reinforcement in both the longitudinal and
transverse directions. A series of scaled earthquake motions were applied to the GRS bridge
abutment system in the longitudinal direction. Experimental results indicate that the horizontal
© ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
accelerations in the backfill soil increase with elevation in both the reinforced and retained soil
zones. The measured average peak acceleration of 0.47g for the reinforced soil zone is slightly
greater than the value of 0.42g calculated from current design guidelines, which indicates that
these design guidelines may not be sufficiently conservative. The peak accelerations for the
bridge seat and bridge beam are greater than the PHA due to significant acceleration
amplification in the reinforced soil zone. The response spectrum for the bridge beam indicates a
slight attenuation compared with that of the bridge seat, which is likely due to the isolation effect
of the elastomeric bearing pad between the bridge seat and bridge beam.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this study was provided by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Project 65A0556 and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pooled Fund Project
1892AEA, and is gratefully acknowledged. The first author appreciates funding from the GSI
Fellowship provided by the Geosynthetic Institute. The authors thank Dr. Charles Sikorsky and
Ms. Kathryn Griswell of the Caltrans for their support and assistance with the project. The
authors also thank the staff and undergraduate research assistants at the UCSD Powell Structural
Laboratories for their help with the experimental work. The geogrid materials used in this study
were provided by Tensar International Corporation.
REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 6th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Abu-Hejleh, N., Zornberg, J.G., Wang, T., and Watcharamonthein, J. (2002). “Monitored
displacements of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments.” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 9, No. 1, 71–95.
Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J., Schlatter, W., and Hartmann, J. (2011). “Geosynthetic
reinforced soil integrated bridge system synthesis report.” FHWA-HRT-11-027, U.S. DOT,
Washington, D.C.
Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Froessl, B. (2003). “GRS bridge abutments – An effective
means to alleviate bridge approach settlement.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 21, No.
3, 177–196.
Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Kitsabunnarat, A. (2007). “Simulating the behavior of GRS
bridge abutments.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133,
No. 10, 1229–1240.
Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.T.H., and Meinholz, P. (2012). Seismic Design of GeosyntheticReinforced Soil Bridge Abutments with Modular Block Facing. NCHRP Web-Only
Document 187, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Iai, S. (1989). “Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid models in 1 g
gravitational fields.” Soils and Foundations, 29(1), 105–118.
Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., and Chen, Q. (2017). “Performance monitoring of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) in Louisiana.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 45, No. 2, 34–47.
The Reinforced Earth Company. (1995). “Seismic design of reinforced earth retaining walls and
bridge abutments.” Technical Bulletin MSE 9.
Wu, J.T.H., Ketchart, K., and Adams, M. (2001). “GRS bridge piers and abutments.” Report No.
FHWA-RD-00-038, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C.
© ASCE
8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 293
Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Helwany, S.B., and Ketchart, K. (2006). “Design and construction
guidelines for geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments with a flexible facing.” NCHRP
Report 556, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Zheng, Y. (2017). Numerical simulations and shaking table tests of geosynthetic reinforced soil
bridge abutments. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Zheng, Y., and Fox, P.J. (2016). “Numerical investigation of geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge
abutments under static loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001452, 04016004.
Zheng, Y., and Fox, P.J. (2017). “Numerical investigation of the geosynthetic reinforced soilintegrated bridge system under static loading.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001665, 04017008.
Zheng, Y., Fox, P.J., and McCartney, J.S. “Numerical simulation of deformation and failure
behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering (in press).
Zheng, Y., Sander, A.C., Rong, W., Fox, P.J., Shing, P.B., and McCartney, J.S. (2017). “Shaking
table test of a half-scale geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutment.” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20160268.
© ASCE
9