The use of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls has become quite prevalent in highway embankment applications. A design criterion for these walls was originally established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and has been modified on a state by state basis. Recently, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has recorded several wall failures mostly due to excessive settlement and lateral wall deformation and wanted to evaluate the current state design guidelines for regionally available backfill materials. Prior to numerical modeling simulations, material parameters of regionally available backfill needed to be evaluated. As the state guidelines require 85-percent of the wall backfill material to be above the No. 4 sieve, large scale triaxial testing was an option to evaluate strength and volume change parameters. This research used cylindrical specimen 6-inches in diameter and 12- inches in height in a large scale triaxial apparatus. Three types of backfill material were tested and specimens were mixed and compacted in 4 different gradations for each material type. Each gradation was tested at confining stresses corresponding to wall heights of 10, 15, and 20 feet for a total of 36 tests. Basic material parameters such as unit weight and friction angle were evaluated directly from testing, while more complex material parameters were selected from the data for use in the Duncan-Chang elastic constitutive model. This method utilizes hyperbolic curve fitting of both strength and volumetric test data to define soil behavior parameters which include the following: modulus number (K), modulus exponent (n), initial tangent modulus (Ei), failure ratio (Rf ), initial Poisson’s Ratio (νi), and Poisson’s Ratio Parameters G, F, and d. Friction angles from triaxial testing ranged from 32 to 53 degrees having some uncertainty due to inconsistent compaction. The variation in sand and fine size particles in the backfill tended to reduce friction angles, except in the case of Type-B material where density increased due to the high percentage of sand and fines. Duncan-Chang parameters fit reasonably well with experimental data for strength barring some experimental errors. Volumetric parameters were inconclusive due to inconsistent compaction and membrane leakage. Additional testing is needed to provide more sound volumetric data.

Millions of square feet of mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall are constructed annually in the United States. When used in highway fill applications in conjunction with bridges, these MSE walls are typically constructed with a roadside barrier system supported on the edge of the wall. This barrier system generally consists of a traffic barrier or bridge rail placed on a continuous footing or structural slab. The footing is intended to reduce the influence of barrier impact loads on the retaining wall system by distributing the load over a wide area and to provide stability for the barrier against sliding or overturning. The proper design of the roadside barrier, the structural slab, and the MSE wall system requires a good understanding of relevant failure modes, how barrier impact loads are transferred into the wall system, and the magnitude and distribution of these loads. In this study, a procedure is developed that provides guidance for designing: 1. the barrier-moment slab, 2. the wall reinforcement, and 3. the wall panels. These design guidelines are developed in terms of AASHTO LRFD procedures. The research approach consisted of engineering analyses, finite element analyses, static load tests, full-scale dynamic impact tests, and a full-scale vehicle crash test. It was concluded that a 44.5 kN (10 kips) equivalent static load is appropriate for the stability design of the barrier-moment slab system. This will result in much more economical design than systems developed using the 240 kN (54 kips) load that some user agencies are using. Design loads for the wall reinforcement and wall panels are also presented.

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall is a civil structure that has been used for various purposes e.g., supporting bridges, residential or commercial buildings, roadways, railroads etc. In general, MSE wall uses either metal strip, bar or geosynthetics materials as reinforcement. Roger et al. (2010) mentioned that an approximately 57% of the MSE wall constructed in U.S. utilize steel strips as the resources of reinforcement. The usage of metal steel strips is followed by usage of steel bar mats (24%) and geosynthetics grids (18%). Even though MSE walls are designed for a service life of 75 to 100 years, early complication has often been reported. Corrosion of the reinforced steel has been the major cause that afflicts the long-term performance of these walls. The deicing salts used on pavements to melt down snow is one of the major cause of corrosion of these reinforced steels. The aggressiveness of deicers in terms of corrosion of these reinforced steel is studied through the potentiodynamic polarization technique at various concentrations. This study aims to determine the corrosion behavior on galvanized steel and bare steel in presence of individual deicing salt or deicers e.g., sodium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and potassium acetate at various (i.e., 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0 M) concentration. Subsequently, the surface morphology was analyzed by using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and the mineralogical composition was observed through X-Ray Diffraction (XRD). In addition, the corrosivity of two backfill aggregates, natural aggregate and recycled concrete aggregate, was compared. The result shows that the corrosion effect of deicers on reinforced steel depends on its chemical composition and concentration. The SEM imaging showed the presence of micro cracks on the surface of galvanized steel, resulting in pitting corrosion rather than general surficial corrosion. Comparing the corrosion rate of these deicers, the aggressiveness of these deicers on galvanized steel can be arranged in the following order: sodium chloride > calcium chloride > magnesium chloride > potassium acetate. Although sodium chloride was most aggressive for both the steel, the aggressiveness of these deicers on bare steel was different from that of galvanized steel and can be arranged in following order: sodium chloride > magnesium chloride > calcium chloride > potassium acetate. The pH and electrical resistivity of the natural and recycled aggregates were compared with standard provided by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and found to be non-corrosive. The corrosion rate of both the aggregates on galvanized and bare steel were inappreciable. While analyzing the corrosiveness of these two aggregates, recycled concrete aggregate was observed to be more aggressive than the natural aggregate.

Full scale lateral load testing was performed on four 12.75x0.375 pipe piles spaced at 3.9, 2.9, 2.8, and 1.7 pile diameters behind an MSE wall which was constructed for this research to determine appropriate reduction factors for lateral pile resistance based on pile spacing behind the back face of the wall. The load induced on eight soil reinforcements located at various transverse distances from the pile and at different depths was monitored to determine the relationship between lateral load on the pile and load induced in the reinforcement. Each pile was loaded towards the wall in 0.25 in. increments to a total deflection of 3.0 in. Additionally, wall panel displacement was also monitored to determine if it remained in acceptable bounds. The results of the research indicate that pile resistance tends to decrease as spacing decreases. P-multipliers for the 3.9, 2.9, 2.8, 1.7D tests were found to be 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, and 0.5, respectively using back-analysis with the computer model LPILE. However, these multipliers are higher than expected based on previous testing and research. Piles spaced further than 3.8D can be assumed to have no interaction with the wall. The resistance of piles spaced closer to the wall than 3.8D can be modeled in LPILE using a p-multiplier less than 1.0. The reinforced backfill can be modeled in LPILE using the API Sand (1982) method with a friction angle of 31º and a modulus of approximately 60 pci when a surcharge of 600 psf is applied. If no surcharge is applied, a friction angle of 39º and modulus of 260 pci is more appropriate. Maximum wall panel displacement was highest for the 2.8D test and was 0.35 in. at 3.0 in. of pile head displacement. For all the other tests, the maximum wall displacement at 3.0 in. of pile head displacement was similar and was approximately 0.15 inches. Induced load in the soil reinforcement increases with depth to the 2nd or 3rd layer of reinforcement after which it decreases. Induced load in the reinforcement increases as pile spacing decreases. Induced load in the reinforcement decreases rapidly with increased transverse distance from the pile. Induced load in the reinforcement can be estimated using a regression equation which considers the influence of pile load, pile spacing behind the wall, reinforcement depth or vertical stress, and transverse spacing of the reinforcement.

Pile foundations for bridges must often resist lateral loads produced by earthquakes and thermal expansion and contraction of the superstructure. Right-of-way constraints near bridge abutments are leading to an increased use of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls below the abutment. Previous research has shown that lateral pile resistance can be greatly reduced when piles are placed close to MSE walls but design codes do not address this issue. A full-scale MSE wall was constructed and 24 lateral load tests were conducted on pipe, square and H piles spaced at distances of about 2 to 5 pile diameters from the back face of the wall. The MSE wall was constructed using welded-wire grid and ribbed strip inextensible reinforcements. This paper focuses on four lateral load tests conducted on steel pipe piles located behind a 20-ft section of MSE wall reinforced with welded-wire grids. Results showed that measured lateral resistance decreases significantly when pipe piles are located closer than about 4 pile diameters from the wall. LPILE software was used to back-calculate P-multipliers that account for the reduced lateral resistance of the pile as a function of normalized spacing from the wall. P-multipliers for this study were 0.95, 0.68, and 0.3 for piles spaced 4.3, 3.4 and 1.8 pile diameters from the wall, respectively. Based on results from this study and previous data, lateral pile resistance is relatively unaffected (p-multiplier = 1.0) for piles spaced more than approximately 3.9 pile diameters (3.9D) from the MSE wall. For piles spaced closer than 3.9D, the p-multiplier decreased linearly as distance to the wall decreased. P-multipliers were not affected by differences in reinforcement length to height (L/H) ratio or reinforcing type. Lateral pile loads induce tensile forces in the soil reinforcement such that, as pile load increases the maximum induced tensile force increases. Results also indicate that maximum tensile forces typically occurred in the soil reinforcement near the pile location. Past research results were combined with data from this study and a statistical regression analysis was performed using all data associated with welded-wire grid reinforcements. A regression equations was developed to predict the peak induced tensile force in welded-wire grids based on independent variables including lateral pile load, normalized pile distance (S/D), transverse distance (T/D), L/H ratio, and vertical stress. The equation has an R2 value of 0.79, meaning it accounts for approximately 79% of variation for all welded-wire grid reinforcements tested to date.

A team from Brigham Young University and I performed full-scale lateral load tests on individual and grouped 12.75x0.375 inch pipe piles spaced at varying distances behind an MSE wall. The individually loaded pile which acted as a control was spaced at 4.0 pile diameters from the wall face, and the three grouped piles which were loaded in unison were spaced at 3.0, 2.8, and 1.8 pile diameters from the wall face and transversely spaced at 4.7 pile diameters center-to-center. The purpose of these tests was to determine the extent of group effects on lateral pile resistance, induced loads in soil reinforcements, and MSE wall panel deflections compared to those previously observed in individually laterally loaded piles behind MSE walls. The computer model LPILE was used in my analysis of the measured test data. The p-multipliers back-calculated with LPILE for the grouped piles were 0.25, 0.60, and 0.25 for the grouped piles spaced at 3.0, 2.8, and 1.8 pile diameters from the wall, respectively. These values are lower than that predicted for piles at the same pile-to-wall spacings using the most recent equation for computing p-multipliers. I propose the use of an additional p-multiplier for grouped piles near an MSE wall, a group-effect p-multiplier, to account for discrepancies between individual and grouped pile behaviors. The group effect p-multipliers were 0.35, 0.91, and 0.74 for the grouped piles spaced at 3.0, 2.8, and 1.8 pile diameters from the wall, respectively. The average group-effect p-multiplier was 0.66. Additionally, I used LPILE to analyze test data from Pierson et al. (2009), who had previously performed full-scale lateral load tests of individual and grouped shafts. In said analysis, the group of three 3-foot diameter concrete shafts spaced at 2.0 shaft diameters from the wall face and transversely spaced at 5.0 shaft diameters center-to-center had an average group effect p-multiplier of 0.78. As in previous studies, the induced forces in soil reinforcements in this study were greatest either near the locations of the test piles or at the MSE wall face. The most recent equation for calculating the maximum induced force in a soil reinforcement strip was reasonably effective in predicting the measured maximum loads when superimposed between the test piles, with 65% and 85% of the data points falling within the one and two standard deviation boundaries, respectively, of the original data used to develop the equation. Deflection of the MSE wall panels was greater during the grouped pile test than was previously observed for individually loaded piles under similar pile head deflections--with a maximum wall deflection of 0.31 inch compared to the previous average of 0.10 inch for pile head deflections of about 1.25 inches.

Installing load bearing piles within the reinforcement zone of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls is common practice in the construction industry. Bridge abutments are often constructed in this manner to adapt to increasing right-of-way constraints, and must be capable of supporting horizontal loads imposed by, traffic, earthquakes, and thermal expansion and contraction. Previous researchers have concluded that lateral pile resistance is reduced when pile are placed next to MSE walls but no design codes have been established to address this issue. Full –scale testing of statically applied lateral loads to four 24”x0.5” pipe piles, and cyclically applied lateral load to four 12.75”x0.375” pipe piles placed 1.5-5.3 pile diameters behind a 20-foot MSE wall was performed. The MSE wall was constructed using 5’x10’ concrete panels and was supported with ribbed strip and welded wire streel reinforcements. The computer software LPILE was used to back-calculate P-multipliers for the 24” piles. P-multipliers are used to indicate the amount of reduction in lateral resistance the piles experience due to their placement near the MSE wall. Previous researchers have proposed that any pile spaced 3.9 pile diameters (D) or more away from the MSE wall will have a P-multiplier of 1; meaning the pile experiences no reduction in lateral resistance due to its proximity to the wall. P-multipliers for piles spaced closer than 3.9D away from the wall decrease linearly as distance from the wall decreases. P-multipliers for the 24” piles spaced 5.1D, 4.1D, 3.0D, and 2.0D were 1, 0.84, 0.55, and 0.44 respectively. Lateral resistance of the 12.75” cyclically loaded piles decreased as the number of loading cycles increased. Lateral resistance of the piles when loads were applied in the direction of the wall was less than the lateral resistance of the piles when loads were applied away from the wall at larger pile head loads. The maximum tensile force experienced by the soil reinforcements generally occurred near the wall side of the pile face when the lateral loads were applied in the direction of the wall. Behind the pile, the tensile force decreased as the distance from the wall increased. Equation 5-4, modified from Rollins (2018) was found to be adequate for predicting the maximum tensile force experienced by the ribbed strip reinforcements during the static loading of the 24” pipe piles, particularly for lower loads. About 65% of the measured forces measured in this study fell within the one standard deviation boundary of the proposed equation.

Full scale lateral load tests were performed on five piles located at various distances behind MSE walls. Three of the five test piles were production piles used to support bridges, and the other two piles were located behind a MSE wing walls adjacent to the bridge abutment. The objective of the testing was to determine the effect of spacing from the wall on the lateral resistance of the piles and on the force resisted by the MSE reinforcement. Tentative curves have been developed showing p-multiplier vs. normalized spacing behind wall for a length to height ratio of 1.1 and 1.6. The data suggest that with a L/H ratio of 1.6, a p-multiplier of 1 can be used when the normalized distance from the back face of the MSE wall to the center of the pile is at least 3.8 pile diameters. When the L/H ratio decreases to 1.1 a p-multiplier of 1 can be used when the pile is at least 5.2 pile diameters behind the wall. A plot showing the induced load in the reinforcement as a function of distance from the pile has been developed. The data in the plot is normalized to the maximum lateral load and to the spacing from the wall to the pile. The best fit curve is capped at a normalized induced force of approximately 0.15. The data show that the induced force on the reinforcement when a lateral load is applied to the piles decreases exponentially as the normalized distance from the pile increases. The plot is limited to the conditions tested, i.e. for the reinforcement in the upper 6 ft. of the wall with L/H values ranging from 1.1 to 1.6.

Full scale lateral load tests were performed on four piles located at various distances behind MSE walls. Three of the four test piles were production piles used to support bridges, and the other pile a production pile used as part of the bridge abutment. The objective of the testing was to determine the effect of spacing from the wall on the lateral resistance of the piles and on the force resisted by the MSE reinforcement. Lateral load-displacement curves were developed for pile at various spacing and with various reinforcement ratio (reinforcement length, L divided by wall height, H). The force in the reinforcement was measured using strain gauges. Lateral load analyses were performed to determine the minimum spacing required to eliminate any effect of the wall on the pile resistance (p-multiplier of 1) and the reduction in soil resistance at closer spacings (p-multiplier less than 1). With the addition of the data fro Price (2012) tentative curves have been developed showing p-multiplier vs. normalized spacing behind wall for a length to height ratio of 1.6, 1.2, and 1.1. The data suggest that with a L/H ratio of 1.6, a p-multiplier of 1 can be used when the normalized distance from the back face of the MSE wall to the center of the pile is at least 3.8 pile diameters. When the L/H ratio decreases to 1.2 and 1.1 a p-multiplier of 1 can be used when the pile is at least 4.5 and 5.2 pile diameters behind the wall respectively. For smaller spacings, the p-multipliers decreased essentially linearly with normalized distance from the wall. A plot showing the increased load in the reinforcement as a function of distance from the pile has been developed. The data in the plot is normalized to the maximum lateral load and to the spacing from the wall to the pile. The best fit curve is capped at a normalized tensile force of approximately 0.12. The data show that the increase in tensile force on the reinforcement when a lateral load is applied to the piles decreases exponentially as the normalized distance from the pile increases. The plot is limited to the conditions tested, i.e. for the reinforcement in the upper 3 ft. of the wall with L/H values at 1.2.

A full scale MSE wall was constructed and piles were driven at various distances behind the wall. Lateral load testing was conducted and the performance of the pile, wall, and reinforcement were measured. The piles were 12.75 inch pipe piles, and the wall was reinforced with welded wire grid reinforcement. The objective of the testing was to characterize the relationship between the lateral pile resistance and the distance of the pile behind the back face of the MSE wall. Load-displacement curves are presented for the piles located behind the wall at 66 inches (5.3 diameters), 55 inches (4.3 diameters), 41 inches (3.2 diameters), and 24 inches (1.9 diameters). The lateral resistance of the piles decreases as the spacing behind the wall decreases. The results of the testing have been matched in LPILE using p-multipliers to reduce the lateral resistance. A curve has been developed showing the variation of p-multiplier with normalized pile spacing behind the wall, including data from previous studies. The curve suggests that a p-multiplier of 1 (no reduction in lateral resistance) can be used when the normalized distance from the back face of the wall to the center of the pile is at least 4 pile diameters. The p-multiplier decreases relatively linearly for smaller spacings.