Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push

M. Ramalakshmi
Institute of Civil Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai, India

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

Article history: Many bridge abutments have suffered failures due to pounding of bridge superstructure elements during
Received 22 May 2020 earthquakes. Due to pounding of the bridge deck, the bridge abutment undergoes translation and rota-
Received in revised form 28 June 2020 tion. The lateral translation of the bridge deck towards the abutment is resisted by the abutments
Accepted 9 July 2020
through mobilisation of passive earth pressure. The passive earth pressure plays an important role in
Available online xxxx
many geotechnical problems. In the conventional design practices, usage of lesser magnitude of passive
pressures is considered to be conservative. However, it is not so under all circumstances. In this paper,
Keywords:
various analytical ways of obtaining the force–displacement response of bridge abutments from different
Force–displacement
Bridge abutment
seismic design guidelines are reviewed. From the literature review, it has been observed that the guide-
Passive resistance lines for obtaining the force–displacement response of the GRS abutments resting on Pile foundations are
Performance-based design yet to be developed.
Abutment stiffness Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.

1. Introduction based design (PBD) approaches is being emphasised in different seis-

Passive earth pressure plays an important role in a wide range of
geotechnical engineering problems. In cantilever retaining walls, the
passive pressure of the soil on the toe side increases the stability of
the retaining wall. The passive pressure helps anchors to withstand
the pull out forces. The contribution of passive pressure is also sig-
nificant in bearing capacity problems. The bridge abutments resist
the lateral displacements of the bridge deck due to thermal varia-
tions and/or seismic excitations through mobilisation of the passive
pressure [3,5,16,28,29]. The lateral stiffness of underground struc-
tures such as sheet piles, pile foundations etc., increases due to the
passive pressure development [12,21]. Conversely, the passive pres-
sure can also be harmful to the structure if it is not designed for the
same. The bridge abutments can be damaged due to the increased
passive forces during thermal expansion of the deck and girder
[9,27]. Underground tunnels and pipelines may also experience pas-
sive loads due to a nearby fault [2,35].
2. Significance of passive earth pressure in geotechnical
constructions
A need for the characterisation of nonlinear force–displacement
behaviour of foundations in the emerging field of performance-
E-mail address: mrl.geotech@gmail.com
mic codes. The lateral translation behaviour of bridge abutments has
been studied by a few researchers. Based on the previous full scale test
results, seismic design guidelines have been developed for the deter-
mination of abutment passive force–displacement (Pp–D) response.
The different methods of determination of Pp–D response of bridge
abutments given in the seismic design guidelines are reviewed first.
It is better to be as accurate as possible in the estimation of passive
pressures. In conventional design practice, the use of lesser passive pres-
sure is considered as a conservative approach. This usage is valid where
the passive resistance is expected to resist the varying lateral loads and
the availability of higher reserved capacity is better than the anticipated
one. However the lateral spreading of the backfill soil behind the abut-
ments (Fig. 1) would also induce passive forces on the abutment. Under
those circumstances, the huge passive forces can cause the damage to
bridge foundation elements. Hence designing the abutment for higher
passive forces would be considered as safe. The excessive passive forces
are unfavourable when the backfill moves towards the bridge abut-
ments [10]. Estimating the accurate magnitude of passive forces is bet-
ter rather than under prediction or over prediction.
3. Implementation of Force-Displacement response in design
guidelines
Passive earth pressure can be calculated from earth pressure
theories such as Coulomb’s theory and Rankine’s theory. Log spiral

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.

Please cite this article as: M. Ramalakshmi, Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
2 M. Ramalakshmi / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Nomenclature
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Officials
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
GRS Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
HFD Hyperbolic Force-Displacement
PBD Performance-Based Design
PBEE Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
NotationsPp Passive force per unit width
K50 Average abutment stiffness at 50% of Pp,ult
Ka Active earth pressure coefficient
Kabut Stiffness of the abutment under lateral translation
towards backfill
Fig. 1. Lateral spreading induced damage to bridge abutments during an earthquake.
method is also used to estimate the passive force. The friction
between the soil and wall is ignored in the Rankine’s theory while
it is included in Coulomb’s theory and log-spiral method. The fail-
ure surface is a planar surface in Rankine’s and Coulomb’s theories
while it is a log-spiral surface in the log-spiral method. The passive
earth pressure is given by
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
pp ¼ chK p þ 2c0 Kp
where pP = passive earth pressure, Kp = coefficient of passive earth
pressure, c0 = cohesion of the backfill, c = unit weight of the backfill
and h = backfill height.
3.1. Methods of determination of passive force-displacement response
3.1.1. CALTRANS method
Bilinear variation of passive force (Pp) with lateral displacement
(D) is assumed in CALTRANS [5] method. The Pp–D relationship is
governed by two parameters (Fig. 2) namely, the initial stiffness of
the abutment (Ki) and the ultimate passive force (Pp,ult).
The initial stiffness of the abutment (Ki) is equal to 28.7 and
14.35 MN/m per unit width of the abutment wall for dense back-
fills and loose backfills respectively. The magnitude of Ki is to be
adjusted for the height of the abutment wall according to Eq. (2):
he
K abut ¼ K i  we 
1:7
where Kabut = lateral stiffness of the abutment under lateral transla-
tion towards the backfill, he = effective height of the abutment (in
’m’), we = effective width of the abutment corrected for skew. The
magnitude of ultimate passive force (Pp,ult) is determined using:
Please cite this article as: M. Ramalakshmi, Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
Ki Initial tangent stiffness of the abutment-wall
system
Kp Passive earth pressure coefficient
Pp Passive force generated
Pp,ult Ultimate or maximum passive force generated
c Unit weight of soil
D Lateral translation
d Angle of wall friction
D50 Horizontal displacement of the abutment at
Pp,ult / 2
Dh Lateral displacement of the abutment
Dmax Horizontal displacement of the abutment at Pp,ult
he
Pp;ult ¼ Ae  239  ð3Þ
1:7
where Ae = effective area of the abutment wall = he  we.
3.2. AASHTO method
ð1Þ
The guidelines given by AASHTO [1] prescribe a bilinear varia-
tion of passive force with lateral displacement (Fig. 3). There are
no prescribed value for either the abutment stiffness (Ki) or the
ultimate passive force (Pp,ult). The ultimate passive force (Pp,ult) is
determined by log-spiral theory. The displacement (Dmax) at which
the passive pressure reaches its maximum value is defined by the
guidelines given by Clough and Duncan [7]. The usage of log spiral
theory and soil type based values of Dmax for the characterisation of
Pp -D relationship is the special feature of AASHTO [1] method.
3.3. Duncan and Mokwa hyperbolic method
The hyperbolic passive force–displacement (Pp -D) relationship
(Fig. 4) is given by Duncan and Mokwa [9]:
D
Pp ¼ h i ð4Þ
ð2Þ 1
þ Rf D
Ki P p;ult
Pp,ult = Ep. M3D. b (5)where D = pile cap deflection, Rf = failure
ratio = 0.75 to 0.95, Ki = initial soil stiffness, Pp,ult = maximum pas-
sive force, Ep = passive force per unit width, M3D = Ovesen-Brinch
Hansen 3D correction factor and b = pile cap width.
 M. Ramalakshmi / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 2. CALTRANS [5] method.

Fig. 5. Shamsabadi et al. [28] LSH method.

Fig. 3. AASHTO [1] method.

where K50 is the average abutment stiffness and is obtained by Pp,ult

/(2D50); Pp,ult is the maximum passive force; D50 is the displacement
at Pp,ult/2. Similarly, Dmax is the displacement at Pp,ult.

4. Experimental investigations of Force-Displacement response

under passive push

Linear and rotational springs are used to represent soil medium

in many structural engineering problems. The advent of
performance-based design (PBD) in engineering has evoked the
need to compute realistic pushover relationships (P-D) for founda-
tions. Therefore the behaviour of bridge abutments under lateral
push towards the backfill has been studied through full scale tests
[11,29] also. In many studies, the backfills were unreinforced soil
Fig. 4. Duncan and Mokwa [9] method. medium. Fredrickson et al. [11] studied the Pp-D response of the
bridge abutments with GRS backfill. In their study, the effect of
3.4. Shamsabadi LSH method skew angle and presence of geotextiles on the magnitude of pas-
sive resistance were analysed. In order to upgrade the database
Shamsabadi et al. [28] proposed a simplified hyperbolic force– on the performance of GRS abutments under lateral push and to
displacement (HFD) relation (Fig. 5) for passive force–displace- identify the effects of performance factors (geogrid length, spacing
ment response which is given as and abutment height) on the Pp-D response, a comprehensive anal-
ysis of the GRS bridge abutments is a necessary prerequisite.
CD
Pp ðDÞ ¼ ð6Þ
1 þ DD 4.1. Full scale passive push tests on pile caps
where C and D are the model constants and are given by
  When the accelerations are more than the design earthquake
Pp;ult
C ¼ 2K 50  ð7Þ acceleration levels, the backwall of the bridge abutment (Fig. 1)
Dmax
is expected to break free from its base and plunge into the backfill
  [American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
K 50 1
D¼2  ð8Þ cials (AASHTO), [1]]. In the reverse conditions, the abutment
Pp;ult Dmax together with the backwall exerts resistance to both the translation

Please cite this article as: M. Ramalakshmi, Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
4 M. Ramalakshmi / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
and rotational movements. Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA-356, [39]) retrofit design guidelines also specified
the need for establishing the nonlinear lateral force–displacement
failure characteristics of the foundations. During a seismic event,
the bridge abutments undergo cyclic translations and rotations.
The ultimate passive force can be calculated using log-spiral
method or method of slices. The validation of the above methods
is performed with the data available from the full scale tests. Many
researchers have studied the passive pressure mobilisation
through large scale tests. The summary of medium to large scale
passive pressure tests is given in Table 1. Static lateral load tests
on a pile cap with gravel backfill are carried out by Rollins and
Sparks [20]. The backfill has contributed about 40% of the total pile
cap resistance. The lateral displacement to wall height ratio (D/h)
corresponding to a peak passive pressure is 0.06.
The cyclic push tests have been conducted by Rollins and Cole
[21] on pile caps with and without backfill. The backfills con-
tributed about 33 to 47% of the total passive resistance of the pile
cap. It is also observed that there was no degradation in stiffness
after about five to seven cycles. The full scale tests on pile caps
by Valentine [34] revealed that the reloading stiffness of the pile
cap increased by a factor of three to four due to the passive pres-
sures from the backfill and it is about 120 to 250 MN/m per unit
length of the wall. The passive load tests on pile caps retaining four
different types of backfills have been carried out by Pruett [17].
Loosely compacted and densely compacted coarse gravel and fine
gravel backfills were tested. The loosely compacted and densely
compacted backfills increased the stiffness by a factor of two and
four respectively. The ultimate passive force was reached at a lat-
eral displacement to wall height ratio (D/h) of 0.04 for the dense
backfills whereas for the loose backfills the maximum resistance
was mobilised at larger displacements.
The cyclic lateral load tests on pile caps have been conducted by
Cummins [8]. The maximum passive earth pressure was mobilised
at a D/h ratio of 0.03. The effects of provision of thin gravel layers
behind the abutment walls have been studied by Rollins et al. [22].
Three backfills were tested. Loose silty sand backfill with and with-
out gravel fronts of 0.91 and 1.82 m thicknesses were tested. The
passive resistance mobilised for the backfills of 0.91 and 1.82 m
thick gravel fronts were observed to be 54 and 78% of the passive
resistance of the gravel backfill. The thin and thick gravel fronts
increased the lateral stiffness of the pile caps by 125 and 250%
when compared to the backfill consisting of loose silty sand. The
pile caps retaining backfills that are laterally supported by
mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) wing walls were tested by
Strassburg [30]. The earth pressure on the wing walls is about 3
to 9% of the earth pressure on the pile cap. The presence of steel
bar mesh reduced the lateral pressure on the wing walls.
Table 1
Summary of medium to large scale passive pressure tests [20].
Study Wall height (m)
Terzaghi [31] 2.13
Tschebotarioff and Johnson [32] 0.61
Schofield [26] 0.15
Rowe and Peaker [25] 0.45
Mackey and Kirk [13] 0.30
Narain et al. [15] 0.45
Broms and Ingelson [4] 2.75
Tcheng and Iseux [33] 3.00
Carder et al. [6] 1.00
Maroney [14] 2.06
Duncan and Mokwa [9] 1.067
Please cite this article as: M. Ramalakshmi, Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
4.2. Full scale passive push tests on bridge abutment backwalls
Lateral load tests on bridge abutments have been carried out by
Romstadt et al. [24]. Behaviour of diaphragm type and seat type
bridge abutments under lateral loads have been investigated by
Bozorgzadeh [3]. It was observed that the passive resistance of
the abutment is lower when the vertical movement of the abut-
ment is allowed. When the vertical movement of the abutment
was restricted, the passive resistance was more. Lateral push test
on the abutment backwall has been carried out by Stewart et al.
[29]. Restricting the vertical movement, the abutment wall was
pushed horizontally towards the backfill. The average abutment
stiffness, K50 was observed to be 18.5 MN/m per ’m’ length of the
abutment. The uniform residual passive pressure was 244 kN/m2
while the seismic design criteria of CALTRANS [5] suggested a mag-
nitude of 239 kN/m2.
Passive pressures on bridge abutments have been investigated
by Wilson [38] and Wilson and Elgamal [37]. The maximum pas-
sive resistance was attained at a horizontal displacement (D) of
2.7 to 3% of the height of the backfill. Two abutment walls of height
2.4 m were tested under lateral push by Stewart et al. [29]. The
backfills with moderate and high relative density were tested.
The dense backfill showed strain softening after reaching the peak
passive force. The maximum and residual passive earth pressure
coefficients were 24 and 17 respectively. The loosely compacted
backfill did not show any strain softening and the maximum pas-
sive earth pressure coefficient was 10. The passive force (Pp)
behind the skewed bridge abutments has been studied by Rollins
and Jessee [23]. It was observed that with increasing skew angles,
the passive resistance was decreased. The passive resistance
reduced by half for a skew angle of 30. The skew angle did not alter
the displacement at which the maximum resistance (Dmax) was
mobilised. It is noted that the shape of the Pp–D curve evolved
from a hyperbolic shape to a bilinear shape as the skew angle is
increased.
4.3. Passive push on GRS backfills behind bridge abutments and pile
caps
Field monitoring by Warren et al. [36] on an operating bridge in
Ohio over a period of 3.5 years has revealed the realistic perfor-
mance of the GRS abutments under thermal variations. The expan-
sion and contraction of the bridge caused the development of
passive and active pressures on the abutment. However, during
the expansion and contraction cycles, there were no failures
observed within the soil as well as on the road surface. The GRS
backfill was observed to be more flexible and hence remained
intact with the abutment backwall. Warren et al. [36] stated that
Mode of movement D/h
Rotation about base 0.001
Translation Dense: 0.05–0.06
Loose: >0.18
Rotation about top 0.048
Translation 0.04–0.07
Translation 0.016–0.025
Translation, 0.033–0.075
Rotation about top, 0.02–0.06
Rotation about bottom 0.07–0.10
Rotation 0.0013–0.0017
Rotation 0.02–0.06
Translation 0.025
Translation >0.025
Translation 0.03
 M. Ramalakshmi / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
‘‘The GRS Integrated Bridge System (IBS) is behaving significantly
more like a system with unrestrained boundaries due to the flexi-
bility of the GRS approach at each end”. Also the passive pressures
have not increased with time. As the GRS backfills reduce the
approach settlement, there were no bumps at the bridge
approaches. Thus the overall performance of the GRS abutment
was observed to be very good. Fredrickson et al. [11] conducted
the full scale tests on pile caps with unreinforced and geotextile
reinforced backfills. The effect of skew angle on the passive resis-
tance was also studied by testing abutment backwalls with and
without skew. The GRS backfills showed lesser initial stiffnesses
and attained about 79 to 87% of the passive resistance of the unre-
inforced gravel backfill.
The passive resistance behaviour of GRS backfilled abutments has
been examined in a few of the reported studies. In the experimental
studies, geotextile is used as the reinforcement. More studies on the
passive resistance of the GRS abutments are needed in order to study
the effect of different reinforcement materials, spacing and length. In
the study by Ramalakshmi and Dodoagoudar [18,19], the geogrid
has been used as the reinforcement and accordingly the material
properties have been chosen. Semi-integral GRS abutments of three
different geogrid spacings and lengths have been modelled and anal-
ysed in the study. The effects of geogrid reinforcement on the hyper-
bolic force–displacement (HFD) parameters, namely the average
abutment stiffness (K50) and maximum passive resistance (Pp,ult) of
the GRS abutments are also investigated.
5. Summary and conclusions
The available methods of determination of passive force–dis-
placement relationships for the unreinforced bridge abutments
are reviewed at the beginning of the article. The observations made
by different researchers on the HFD parameters of the passive
resistance (i.e., Pp,ult, Dmax and K50) are presented. The evaluation
of HFD parameters for the GRS bridge abutments is also reviewed.
These Force-displacement curves are not available for GRS bridge
abutments supported on pile foundations, wherein the characteris-
tics of the pile foundations such as its distance from the abutment
face, size and material of the pile foundation would come into pic-
ture. Hence more numerical as well as experimental studies are
needed for the development of force–displacement responses of
GRS bridge abutments resting on Pile foundations.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] AASHTO, Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2015.
[2] T.H. Abdoun, D. Ha, M.J. O’Rourke, M.D. Symans, T.D. O’Rourke, M.C. Palmer, H.
E. Stewart, Factors influencing the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to
earthquake faulting, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29 (2009) 415–427.
[3] A. Bozorgzadeh, Effect of Structure Backfill on Stiffness and Capacity of Bridge
Abutments Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2007.
[4] B.B. Broms, I. Ingelson, Earth pressure against the abutments of a rigid frame
bridge, Geotechnique 21 (1971) 15–28.
[5] CALTRANS, Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.7, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California, 2013.
[6] D.R. Carder, R.G. Pocock, R.T. Murray, Experimental Retaining Wall Facility-
Lateral Stress Measurements with Sand Backfill, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, 1977.
[7] G.W. Clough, J.M. Duncan, Earth pressure, Chapter 6, in: Found Eng. Handbok,
2nd ed., Hsai-Yang Fang, Van Norstrand, Reinhold, 1991.
[8] C.R. Cummins, Behavior of a Full-Scale Pile Cap with Loosely and Densely
Compacted Clean Sand Backfill under Cyclic and Dynamic M. S. Thesis,
Brigham Young University, 2009.
Please cite this article as: M. Ramalakshmi, Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.202
5
[9] J.M. Duncan, R.L. Mokwa, Passive earth pressures: theories and tests, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (2001) 248–257.
[10] Fredrickson, Large-Scale Testing of Passive Force Behavior for Skewed Bridge
Abutments with Gravel and Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Backfills, M. S
Thesis, Brigham Young University, Utah, 2015.
[11] A. Fredrickson, K.M. Rollins, J. Nicks, Passive force-deflection behaviour of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil backfill based on large-scale tests, Geotechnical
Frontiers, 2017, Orlando, FL, March, 23–32.
[12] A. Gadre, R. Dobry, Lateral cyclic loading centrifuge tests on square embedded
footing, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (1998) 1128–1138.
[13] R.D. Mackey, D.P. Kirk, At rest, active and passive earth pressures, in:
Proceedings of Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, 1968, pp. 187–199.
[14] B. Maroney, Large Scale Bridge Abutment Test to Determine Stiffness and
Ultimate Strength under Seismic Loading Ph. D. Thesis, University of California,
Davis, CA, 1995.
[15] R.J. Narain, S. Saran, P. Nandakumaran, Model study of passive pressure in
sand, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 95 (1969) 969–984.
[16] A. Lemnitzer, E.R. Ahlberg, R.L. Nigbor, A. Shamsabadi, J.W. Wallace, J.P.
Stewart, Lateral performance of full-scale bridge abutment wall with granular
backfill, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (2009) 506–514.
[17] J.M. Pruett, Performance of a Full-Scale Lateral Foundation with Fine and
Coarse Gravel Backfills Subjected to Static, Cyclic, and Dynamic Lateral Loads
M. S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Utah, 2009.
[18] M. Ramalakshmi, G.R. Dodagoudar, Lateral response analysis of GRS bridge
abutments under passive push, Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS AGSSEA 49 (4) (2018)
49–54.
[19] M. Ramalakshmi, G.R. Dodagoudar, Passive force-displacement behaviour of
GRS bridge abutments, Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 4 (2018) 28.
[20] K.M. Rollins, A.E. Sparks, Lateral load capacity of a full-scale fixed-head pile
group, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (2002) 711–723.
[21] K.M. Rollins, R.T. Cole, Cyclic lateral load behavior of a pile cap and backfill, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (2006) 1143–1153.
[22] K.M. Rollins, T.M. Gerber, L. Heiner, Passive Force-Deflection Behavior for
Abutments with MSE Confined Approach Fills, Utah Department of
Transportation, 2010.
[23] K.M. Rollins, S. Jessee, Passive force-deflection curves for skewed abutments, J.
Bridge Eng. 17 (2013) 1086–1094.
[24] K. Romstadt, B.L. Kutter, B. Maroney, E. Vanderbilt, M. Griggs, Y.H. Chai,
Experimental Measurements of Bridge Abutment Behavior, University of
California, Davis, CA, 1995.
[25] P.W. Rowe, K. Peaker, Passive earth pressure measurements, Geotechnique 15
(1965) 57–78.
[26] A.N. Schofield, The development of lateral force of sand against the vertical
face of a rotating model foundation, in: Proceedings of 5th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, 1961, pp.
479–484.
[27] B. Shah, 3D Finite Element Analysis of Integral Abutment Bridges subjected to
Thermal Loading M. S. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas,
2007.
[28] A. Shamsabadi, K.M. Rollins, M. Kapuskar, Nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge
structure interaction for seismic performance-based design, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (2007) 707–720.
[29] J.P. Stewart, E. Taciroglu, J.W. Wallace, E.R. Ahlberg, A. Lemnitzer, C. Rha, P.
Tehrani, S. Keowen, R.L. Nigbor, A. Salamanca, Full Scale Cyclic Testing of
Foundation Support Systems for Highway Bridges. Part II: Abutment
Backwalls, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007.
[30] A.N. Strassburg, Influence of Relative Compaction on Passive Resistance of
Abutments with Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wingwalls. M. S. Thesis,
Brigham Young University, Utah, 2010.
[31] K. Terzaghi, Large retaining wall tests, I-Pressure of dry sand, Eng. News Rec.
102 (1934) 136–140.
[32] G.P. Tschebotarioff, E.G. Johnson, The Effects of Restraining Boundaries on The
Passive Resistance of Sand. Report to the Office of Naval Research, Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J., 1953.
[33] Y. Tcheng, J. Iseux, Full scale passive pressure tests and stresses induced on a
vertical wall by a rectangular surcharge, in: Proceedings of 5th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics, Madrid, Spain, 1972, pp. 207–214.
[34] T.J. Valentine, Dynamic Testing of a Full-Scale Pile Cap with Dense Silty Sand
Backfill M. S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Utah, 2007.
[35] L. Wang, Y. Yeh, A refined seismic analysis and design of buried pipeline for
fault movement, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. (1985).
[36] K.A. Warren, M.J. Whelan, J. Hite, M. Adams, Three Year Evaluation of
Thermally Induced Strain and Corresponding Lateral End Pressures for a GRS
IBS in Ohio. Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234, February, 2014, pp.
4238–4251.
[37] P. Wilson, A. Elgamal, Large-scale passive earth pressure load-displacement
tests and numerical simulation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (2010) 1634–
1643.
[38] P. Wilson, Large Scale Passive Force-Displacement and Dynamic Earth Pressure
Experiments and Simulations P. D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego,
2009.
[39] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA-356, Washington, D.C., 2000.