Passive force-deflection behavior for densely compacted backfills must be considered in bridge design to ensure adequate resistance to both seismic and thermally induced forces. Current codes and practices do not distinguish between skewed and non-skewed bridge abutment geometries; however, in recent years, numerical models and small-scale, plane-strain laboratory tests have suggested a significant reduction in passive force for skewed bridge abutments. Also, various case studies have suggested higher soil stresses might be experienced on the acute side of the skew angle. For these reasons, three large-scale tests were performed with abutment skew angles of 0, 15 and 30 degrees using an existing pile cap [11-ft (3.35-m) wide by 15-ft (4.57-m) long by 5.5-ft (1.68-m) high] and densely compacted sand backfill confined by MSE wingwalls. These tests showed a significant reduction in passive force (approximately 38% as a result of the 15 degree skew angle and 51% as a result of the 30° skew angle. The maximum passive force was achieved at a deflection of approximately 5% of the backwall height; however, a substantial loss in the rate of strength gain was observed at a deflection of approximately 3% of the backwall height for the 15° and 30° skew tests. Additionally, the soil stiffness appears to be largely unaffected by skew angle for small displacements. These results correlate very well with data available from numerical modeling and small-scale lab tests. Maximum vertical backfill displacement and maximum soil pressure measured normal to the skewed backwall face were located on the acute side of the skew for the 15° and 30° skew test. This observation appears to be consistent with observations made in various case studies for skewed bridge abutments. Also, the maximum outward displacement of the MSE wingwalls was located on the obtuse side of the skew. These findings suggest that changes should be made to current codes and practices to properly account for skew angle in bridge design.

Bridge abutments are designed to withstand lateral pressures from thermal expansion and seismic forces. Current design curves have been seen to dangerously over- and under-estimate the peak passive resistance and corresponding deflection of abutment backfills. Similar studies on passive pressure have shown that passive resistance changes with different types of constructed backfills. The effects of changing the length to width ratio, or including MSE wingwalls determine passive force-deflection relationships. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of the wall heights and of the MSE support on passive pressure and backfill failure, and to compare the field results with various predictive methods. To compare the effects of backfill geometries, three large-scale tests with dense compact sand were performed with abutment backfill heights of 3 ft (0.91 m), 5.5 ft (1.68 m), and 5.5 ft (1.68 m) confined with MSE wingwalls. Using an existing pile cap 11 ft (3.35 m) wide and 5.5 ft (1.68 m) high, width to height ratios for the abutment backfills were 3.7 for the 3ft test, and 2.0 for the 5.5ft and MSE tests. The failure surface for the unconfined backfills exhibited a 3D geometry with failure surfaces extending beyond the edge of the cap, increasing the "effective width", and producing a failure "bulb". In contrast, the constraint provided by the MSE wingwalls produced a more 2D failure geometry. The "effective width" of the failure surface increased as the width to height ratio decreased. In terms of total passive force, the unconfined 5.5ft wall provided about 6% more resistance than the 5.5ft MSE wall. However, in terms of passive force/width the MSE wall provided about 70% more resistance than the unconfined wall, which is more consistent with a plane strain, or 2D, failure geometry. In comparison with predicted forces, the MSE curve never seemed to fit, while the 3ft and 5.5ft curves were better represented with different methods. Even with optimizing between both the unconfined curves, the predicted Log Spiral peak passive forces were most accurate, within 12% of the measured peak resistances. The components of passive force between the unconfined tests suggest the passive force is influenced more by frictional resistance and less by the cohesion as the height of the backwall increases.

Low-strength cellular concrete consists of a cement slurry that is aerated prior to placement. It remains a largely untested material with properties somewhere between those of soil, geofoam, and typical controlled low-strength material (CLSM). The benefits of using this material include its low density, ease of placement, and ability to self-compact. Although the basic laboratory properties of this material have been investigated, little information exists about the performance of this material in the field, much less the passive resistance behavior of this material in the field.In order to evaluate the use of cellular concrete as a backfill material behind bridge abutments, two large-scale tests were conducted. These tests sought to better understand the passive resistance, the movement required to reach this resistance, the failure mechanism, and skew effects for a cellular concrete backfill. The tests used a pile cap with a backwall face 5.5 ft (1.68 m) tall and 11 ft (3.35 m) wide. The backfill area had walls on either side running parallel to the sides of the pile cap to allow the material to fail in a 2D fashion. The cellular concrete backfill for the 30° skew test had an average wet density of 29.6 pcf (474 kg/m3) and a compressive strength of 57.6 psi (397 kPa). The backfill for the 0° skew test had an average wet density of 28.6 pcf (458 kg/m3) and a compressive strength of 50.9 psi (351 kPa). The pile cap was displaced into the backfill area until failure occurred. A total of two tests were conducted, one with a 30° skew wedge attached to the pile cap and one with no skew wedge attached.It was observed that the cellular concrete backfill mainly compressed under loading with no visible failure at the surface. The passive-force curves showed the material reaching an initial peak resistance after movement equal to 1.7-2.6% of the backwall height and then remaining near this strength or increasing in strength with any further deflection. No skew effects were observed; any difference between the two tests is most likely due to the difference in concrete placement and testing.