The basic design methods outlined in chapter 4 considers MSE structures with simple

geometries
with reinforcement layers of the same length supporting either a horizontal backfill or a
surcharge
slope. Although most MSE structures fall into this category, structures with more complex
geometries or significant external loads are practical and require consideration during the
selection
process. They include:
! Bridge abutments.
! Superimposed walls.
! Walls with uneven length reinforcement.
! Back-to-back walls.
They are illustrated in figure 45.
The shape and location of the maximum tensile force line are generally altered by both the
geometry
and the loads applied on the complex MSE wall structure. It is possible to assume an
approximate
maximum tensile force line for each; however, supporting experience and analysis are more
limited
than for rectangular reinforced soil walls.
Moreover, for complex or compound structures, it is always difficult to separate internal
stability
from external stability because the most critical slip-failure surface may pass through both
reinforced
and unreinforced sections of the structure. For this reason, a global stability analysis is
generally
required for this type of structure. A rough estimate of the global factor of safety could be
made
using plane failure surfaces; however, the best method is to use a reinforced soil global
stability
computer method. The procedures detailed in chapter 7 for evaluating RSS embankments
could be
used to evaluate the global stability of Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls.
The following sections give guidelines for each case.
BRIDGE ABUTMENTS
Bridge abutments have been designed by supporting the bridge beams on a spread foundation
constructed directly on the reinforced soil volume, or by supporting a smaller spread footing
on deep
foundations constructed thru the reinforced volume.
Abutments directly supported on the reinforced volume may be more economical, and should
be
considered when the projected settlement of the foundation and reinforced volume is
rapid/small or
essentially complete, prior to the erection of the bridge beams. Based on field studies of
actual
structures, 1996 AASHTO suggests, that tolerable angular distortions (i.e., limiting
differential
settlements) between abutments or between piers and abutments be limited to the following
angular
distortions:
! 0.005 for simple spans; and
! 0.004 for continuous spans.
This criteria, suggests that for a 30 m (100 ft) span for instance, differential settlements of
120 mm
(4.8 inches) for a continuous span or 150 mm (6 inches) for a simple span, would be
acceptable, with
no ensuing overstress and damage to superstructure elements. On an individual project basis
differential settlements of smaller amounts may be required from a functional or performance
criteria.
a. MSEW Abutments on Spread Footings
Where fully supporting the bridge loads, MSEW bridge abutments are designed by
considering
them as rectangular walls with surcharge loads at the top. The design procedures for taking
account of the surcharge loads for internal stability analysis have been outlined in chapter 4.
The
same type of procedure is used for the internal stability of bridge abutment structures,
calculating
the horizontal stress σh at each level by the following formula (equation 39):
σH = K (γrZ + Δσv) + Δσh
where: Δσv is the increment of vertical stress due to the concentrated vertical surcharge Pv,
assuming a 2V:1H pyramidal distribution (figure 31).
Δσh is the increment of horizontal stress due to the horizontal loads Ph and calculated
as shown in figure 32a, and γZ is the vertical stress at the base of the wall or layer in
question due to the overburden pressure.