Thermal Interaction of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System in St. Lawrence County, NY

Nicks, Jennifer; Adams, Michael T.; Stabile, Thomas; Willard, Andrew E.

doi:10.1061/9780784480458.009

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 9 shows that Methods I and III predicted slightly larger lateral displacements, especially under relatively high vertical stresses (ranging from 644 kPa to 1467 kPa) as compared to the test results. Figure 9 shows the comparison of the lateral displacements of CMU blocks in the TF6 mini-pier test results reported by Nicks et al [31] and Iwamoto [37] and the numerical predictions from this study. It is obvious that the lateral displacements predicted by Method II, especially at the mid-height to the top of the pier, were significantly larger than the test results as well as those predicted by other two models.…”

Section: Load-deformation Behavior Of the Grs Mini-pier Under Vertica...mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…GRS mini-pier test is a test method developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to investigate the load-deformation behavior of a frictionally connected GRS mass [31,32]. A GRS mini-pier is composed of multiple components, such as compacted backfill, closely spaced geosynthetic layers, and hollow Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) facing blocks.…”

Section: Geometry Of Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the GRS mini-pier test is an excellent example to assess different interaction simulation methods on the predicted performance of GRS structures. The mini-pier test TF6 conducted by Nicks et al [31] was chosen as the prototype testing of the numerical investigation to assess different interaction simulation methods. The TF6 mini-pier was 2 m high and composed of ten layers of CMU blocks.…”

Section: Geometry Of Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all three numerical models, the backfill soil VDOT21A aggregate was modeled with the linearly elastic perfectly plastic MC constitutive model. A friction angle ϕ of 53 • and a cohesion c of 5.5 kPa were adopted in the numerical model based on large-scale direct shear test results reported by Nicks et al [31]. A dilation angle ψ of 23 • was used.…”

Section: Constitutive Models and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The input parameters for the "CABLE" and "BEAM" structural elements used in the numerical simulation of the TF6 mini-pier are shown in Table 6. Notes: a based on Nicks et al [31]; b calculated with an out-of-plane width w of 1 m and a thickness of 1 mm.…”

Section: Constitutive Models and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing Numerical Simulation Methods for Reinforcement–Soil/Block Interactions in Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures

Zhao,

Xu,

Shen

et al. 2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to assess effects of two different simulation methods (i.e., interfaces with a single spring-slider system and interfaces with double spring-slider systems) for interactions between reinforcement and the surrounding medium on the performances of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) structures when conducting numerical analyses. The fundamental difference between these two methods is the number of the spring-slider systems used to connect the nodes of structural elements simulating the geosynthetic reinforcement and the points of solid grids simulating the surrounding medium. Numerical simulation results of pull-out tests show that both methods reasonably predicted the pullout failure mode of the reinforcement embedded in the surrounding medium. However, the method using the interfaces with a single spring-slider system could not correctly predict the interface shear failure mode between the geosynthetics and surrounding medium. Further research shows that these two methods resulted in different predictions of the performance of GRS piers as compared with results of a laboratory load test. Numerical analyses show that a combination of interfaces with double spring-slider systems for reinforcement between facing blocks and interfaces with a single spring-slider system for reinforcement in soil resulted in the best performance prediction of the GRS structures as compared with the test results. This study also proposes and verifies an equivalent method for determining/converting the interface stiffness and strength parameters for these two methods.

show abstract

Section: Load-deformation Behavior Of the Grs Mini-pier Under Vertica...mentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Geometry Of Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Geometry Of Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constitutive Models and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constitutive Models and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations