Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

GRS bridge abutments under cyclic lateral push

M. Ramalakshmi ⇑, S. Vidhyalakshmi
Institute of Civil Engineering, Saveetha School of Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai 602105, India

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

Article history: During earthquakes, the bridge abutments can undergo large displacements that are required to develop
Received 15 April 2020 high passive earth pressures behind the abutment walls. In the present study, a finite element (FE) model
Received in revised form 8 August 2020 of a Geogrid Reinforced Soil (GRS) wall has been developed to study the passive earth pressure induced
Accepted 13 August 2020
under cyclic lateral loading. An advanced constitutive model has been used as VUMAT to characterize the
Available online xxxx
soil elements. Uniform lateral displacement is applied to the abutment wall. Pushing and pulling of the
wall is repeatedly done with small increments of lateral displacement towards the soil in each cycle. The
Keywords:
loading is continued until the passive resistance of the soil doesn’t increase much or stands almost at the
GRS bridge abutment
Cyclic push
same value. The improvement in the pushover capacity because of the provision of reinforcement is
Passive resistance about four times that of the unreinforced abutment. Well compacted backfills show a peak capacity,
VUMAT which then decreases to a residual capacity with further push, indicating the dilation of the dense back-
Hypoplastic soil model fill. Whereas the relatively less compacted backfills attain a maximum capacity after being compacted
more due to the initial intruding movement of the wall.
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 2. Passive push tests on bridge abutments

Nonlinear time history analysis provides the seismic displace-
ment demands of a structure under earthquake loading which
are accepted as the exact demands. Appropriate selection of
ground motions and the modeling of structural behavior affect
the accuracy of the results. Also this procedure requires computa-
tional efforts. Hence, nonlinear static analysis based on Pushover
Analysis method has been widely employed to evaluate the seismic
performance of structures. Pushover analysis provides a funda-
mental relationship of lateral force versus lateral displacement of
the structure from elastic state to the ultimate failure and predicts
the seismic demands on inelastic response of the bridge abutment
system. Several small scale and full scale pushover experiments
were conducted by various researchers. Though the full-scale tests
are the best, due to their geometrically real behavior, the cost of
conducting full scale tests is very high.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramalakshmim.sse@saveetha.com (M. Ramalakshmi).
As a pioneer in the subject of passive pressures generated
behind the abutment walls, Terzaghi [1] conducted experiments
on retaining walls allowing them to rotate about their base. It
was followed by several other researchers [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7];
[8] and [9] focussing on the same subject but with slightly different
viewpoints and objectives. The need for establishing the nonlinear
lateral force–displacement (‘‘pushover”) failure characteristics of
foundations were specified by National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) retrofit design guidelines [10].
The bridge abutments resist the lateral force exerted on the
bridge deck, either due to thermal variations and/or due to seismic
excitations, through mobilisation of the passive resistance [11].
Several full scale tests on bridge abutments retaining unreinforced
soil [12,13,14,15,16] have been carried out in order to study the
interaction between soil and the abutment under the passive push.
Full scale test on abutment wall retaining reinforced soil were con-
ducted by Fredrickson et al., 2017. A detailed review on the previ-
ous studies towards the passive force–displacement behaviour of
bridge abutment walls has been made by Ramalakshmi [17].
In many full scale tests, the force applied on the abutment wall
was static and continuous in one direction (i.e. Force towards the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.325
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 and S. Vidhyalakshmi, GRS bridge abutments under cyclic lateral push, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.325
M. Ramalakshmi, S. Vidhyalakshmi
backfill continuously till the failure occurs). In few studies [14] the
wall was pushed towards the backfill for some initial amount (to
initiate the passive resistance) and then the wall was moved in
the opposite direction, (to relieve the passive pressure). The wall
was moved front and back several times causing repeated lateral
loading and unloading on the abutment walls. Thus the abutment
wall was subjected to cyclic push. 18–19 a, b) studied the beha-
viour of GRS bridge abutments under static continuous lateral pas-
sive push. In the present study, the behaviour of the GRS abutment
under cyclic pushover load has been investigated through FE
approach using Abaqus – 6.12.
3. Soil constitutive model
The in-built constitutive models available for soils in Abaqus
6.12 are incapable of simulating dilation and contraction behavior
of sands properly; therefore the hypoplastic constitutive model
with inter-granular strain concept has been chosen to represent
the soil behavior. Kolymbas,Gudehus and their associates devel-
oped the theory of hypoplasticity. Performance of hypoplastic
models have been shown to be good enough formodeling the
deformations due to rearrangements of the grain skeleton[20].
However, some disadvantages were noticed when they were used
for cyclic stressing or deformation with small amplitudes[21]. The
most striking shortcoming was the excessive accumulation of
deformation, which is called ratcheting.
In order to eliminate ratcheting, Niemunis and Herle [20] added
the intergranular strain concept to the hypoplastic constitutive
model published by von Wolffersdorff [22]. The additional state
variable of intergranular strain represents the deformation of the
interface layer between the grains. This constitutive model has
been used to develop the User Material (VUMAT) in FORTRAN,
which can be linked with Finite Element code Abaqus 6.12 Explicit
solver, to characterize the soil elements. This constitute law simu-
lates the soil’s response through fifteen soil parameters.
The constants of the hypoplastic soil model are given below.
They can be determined from simple tests.
1. /c, critical (residual) friction angle, corresponds to the angle of
repose of a loose soil.
2. ec0, is identical to the conventional maximum void ratio emax or
with critical ec for continued granular flow at vanishing
pressure.
3. ed0, is identical to the conventional minimum void ratio emin
obtained by shaking.
4. hs, granular hardness, is a pressure-independent stiffness that
for sands can be estimated from mean grain size d50 and unifor-
mity Cu, or precisely determined from an oedometer test.
5. An exponent n, appearing in the power law for proportional
compression, is close to 0.3 for many sands.
6. An exponent a, can be estimated from d50 and Cu, or calculated
from the triaxial peak friction angle at a given pressure and
density.
7. ei0, is a maximum possible void ratio at zero pressure;
ei0 = 1.1ec0 can be often assumed.
Hypoplastic soil parameters for Toyora sand are given in Table 1,
which were obtained from Herle and Gudehus [23]. In Table 2, the
Table 1
Hypoplastic soil parameters of Toyoura sand.
uc hs (kPa) n ed0
30 2.6e6 0.27 0.61
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
values of intergranular strain parameters according to Niemunis
and Herle [20] are given.
4. FE modeling of GRS bridge abutments
The FE mesh of the unreinforced abutment wall of height 1.6 m
was modified to include the geogrid reinforcements (Fig. 1). The
abutment wall and the geogrid reinforcement were modeled as
elastic materials. The material properties used for the reinforced
concrete wall and the geogrid reinforcement are given in Table 3.
The reinforcements were provided at a spacing of 20 cm along
the height of the wall. The geogrid and the soil are assumed to
be perfectly interlocked under lateral push in all the analyses.
The soil parameters of Toyoura sand were used in order to repre-
sent a cohesionless backfill. The reinforcements were modeled
with truss elements T2D2. The contact or interaction between
the Geogrid reinforcements and the soil was modeled using the
kinematic contact method.
5. Results and discussion
Before studying the behavior of GRS bridge abutments, the
unreinforced bridge abutments were modeled using FEM and stud-
ied under cyclic push (Ramalakshmi and Dodagoudar, 2018a) in
order to validate user material subroutine VUMAT and FE model
of the bridge abutment. After having verified the potential of the
VUMAT and FE model, the parametric studies have been carried
out. The friction angle (/) and the void ratio (e) of the soil are cho-
sen as the variable parameters. The variation of passive resistance
with the above said parameters has been studied in order to eval-
uate the possible behavior of the abutments under the widely vary-
ing properties of the soil.
The pushover curves (lateral force, PH vs lateral displacement,
Dx) of the unreinforced bridge abutment with backfill soil
(uc = 30 degrees) at different void ratios (indicating different
degrees of compaction) are obtained (Fig. 2). The peak resistance
is observed at a lateral displacement of 0.025 m corresponding to
a lateral displacement (D) to wall height (h) ratio of 0.015. As
expected, the backfill soil with less void ratio (denser soils) pose
more pushover demand on the abutment backwall during the ini-
tial stages of lateral displacement (Dx < 0.15 m). Whereas with
increased passive push, the passive resistance is observed to be
the same for all the three backfills with different initial void ratios.
This can be attributed to the commonly observed phenomena of
dilation and compression observed in dense and loose backfills
respectively under compression. Increased lateral displacements
could have caused the backfills of different void ratios to attain
the same final void ratios and thereby making them to offer same
resistances at larger passive push displacements.
Similarly the pushover curves of the reinforced abutment with
backfill soils of different void ratios and angles of friction are
shown in Figs. 3 to 5. The maximum capacity of unreinforced abut-
ments of cohesionless soils (uc = 30, e = 0.65) is 736 kN (Fig. 2).
When the reinforcement is included, the pushover force needed
is about 2689 kN (Fig. 4), which is almost four times that of unre-
inforced abutment exhibiting the effect of geogrid reinforcement in
increasing the pushover demand.
Though the variation of friction angle of the backfill does not
seem to have much influence on the initial stiffness of the abut-
ec0 ei0 a b
0.98 1.1 0.18 1.1
M. Ramalakshmi, S. Vidhyalakshmi Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Intergranular strain parameters.

R mR mT br v
-4
1e 5.0 2.0 0.5 6

Fig. 1. FE mesh of the Bridge Abutment Considered.

Table 3
Material properties of abutment wall and geogrid.

Property Abutment wall Geogrid reinforcement

Elastic modulus (kPa) 23  106 44  103
Poisson’s ratio 0.21 0.3
Density (kg/m3) 2400 1800

Fig. 3. Pushover curves for different angles of internal friction (e = 0.61).

Fig. 2. Pushover curve of unreinforced abutment with cohesionless soil.

ment, it has significant effect on the peak resistance value. The

backfill with higher friction angle exhibits the maximum passive
resistance. The stresses in the soil are transferred to the geogrid
through friction and interlocking. This is why the passive resis-
tance increases with the increase in friction angle. Soils exhibit
higher friction angles due to angular soil particles at denser com-
paction state. Angular nature of the soil grains and compaction Fig. 4. Pushover curves for different angles of internal friction (e = 0.65).
would cause the better interlocking with the geogrid too leading
to increased passive resistances. When the soil is in the densest
state, the peak is observed which is followed by a reduced residual 0.03. In the present study, the peak resistance for denser backfills
resistance. This same phenomenon has been observed by [15] for develops at a displacement of 0.065 m (corresponding to a D/h
denser backfills. In their study, the peak passive resistance devel- ratio of 0.04), which is closer and similar to the observations made
oped at a lateral displacement (D) to wall height (h) ratio of by [15].
3
M. Ramalakshmi, S. Vidhyalakshmi
Fig. 5. Pushover curves for different angles of internal friction (e = 0.70).
6. Conclusions
The cyclic pushover analyses were carried out on unreinforced
and geogrid reinforced bridge abutment.
 In unreinforced abutments, backfills of different initial void
ratios offer different peak resistances. With larger passive push
displacements, all the backfills finally tend to attain same void
ratio and thereby exhibit same passive resistance.
 The denser soils pose more pushover demand on the abutment
backwall, which then attains a residual value. The peak resis-
tances are attained at D/h ratios of 0.015 and 0.04 in unrein-
forced and geogrid reinforced dense backfills respectively.
 The increased pushover demand of geogrid reinforced backfill
when the geogrid is perfectly interlocked with the soil is about
four times that of the unreinforced backfill.
 Thereby it can be ascertained that the peak pushover demand
increases with increasing angles of friction and decreasing void
ratio.
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] K. Terzaghi, Large retaining wall tests, I-Pressure of dry sand, Engineering
News Record 102 (1934) 136–140.
[2] 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.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[3] Schofield, A.N. (1961). The development of lateral force of sand against the
vertical face of a rotating model foundation. Proceedings of 5th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Paris, 479–484.
[4] P.W. Rowe, K. Peaker, Passive earth pressure measurements, Geotechnique 15
(1965) 57–78.
[5] Mackey, R.D. and D.P. Kirk (1968). At rest, active and passive earth pressures.
Proceedings of Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, 187–199.
[6] B.B. Broms, I. Ingelson, Earth pressure against the abutments of a rigid frame
bridge, Geotechnique 21 (1971) 15–28.
[7] Carder, D.R., R.G. Pocock and R.T. Murray Experimental Retaining Wall Facility-
Lateral Stress Measurements with Sand Backfill. Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, 1977.
[8] Maroney, B. Large Scale Bridge Abutment Test to Determine Stiffness and
Ultimate Strength under Seismic Loading, Ph. D. Thesis, University of
California, Davis, CA, 1995.
[9] J.M. Duncan, R.L. Mokwa, Passive Earth Pressures: Theories and Tests, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (2001) 248–257.
[10] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000) Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, D.C:
FEMA, FEMA-356.
[11] CALTRANS Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.7. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California, 2013.
[12] Bozorgzadeh, A., Effect of Structure Backfill on Stiffness and Capacity of Bridge
Abutments. Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2007.
[13] 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.
[14] Stewart, J. P., E. Taciroglu, J.W. Wallace, E.R. Ahlberg, A. Lemnitzer, C. Rha, P.
Tehrani, S. Keowen, R.L. Nigbor, and A. Salamanca Full Scale Cyclic Testing of
Foundation Support Systems for Highway Bridges. Part II: Abutment
Backwalls. University of California, Los Angeles, 2007.
[15] 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.
[16] P. Wilson, A. Elgamal, Large-scale passive earth pressure load-displacement
tests and numerical simulation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (2010) 1634–
1643.
[17] Ramalakshmi, M (2020) ‘‘Force-Displacement Response of Bridge Abutments
Under Passive Push”, Materials Today: Proceedings, (Accepted for
Publication)
[18] M. Ramalakshmi, G.R. Dodagoudar, b) ‘‘Passive force-displacement behaviour
of GRS bridge abutments”, International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground
Engineering 4 (2018) 28.
[19] M. Ramalakshmi, G.R. Dodagoudar, a) ‘‘Lateral response analysis of GRS bridge
abutments under passive push”, Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the
SEAGS & AGSSEA. 49 (4) (2018) 49–54.
[20] A. Niemunis, I. Herle, Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic
strain range, Mech. of coh.-fric. mat. 2 (1997) 279–299.
[21] E. Bauer, W. Wu, ‘‘A hypoplastic model for granular soils under cyclic loading”,
Modern Approaches to Plasticity, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, Amsterdam,
1993, pp. 247–258.
[22] P.A. vonWolffersdorff, A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a
predefined limit state surface, Mech. cohesive-frictional mater. 1 (1996) 251–
271.
[23] I. Herle, G. Gudehus, Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive
model from properties of grain assemblies, Mech. Cohes.-Frict. Mater. 4 (1999)
461–486.
Further Reading
[1] A.I. Panagiotidou, G. Gezatas, N. Gerolymos, Pushover and Seismic Response of
Foundations on Stiff Clay: Analysis with P-Delta Effects, Earthquake Spectra 28
(2012) 1589–1618.