Accounting for seismic forces and thermal expansion in bridge design requires an accurate passive force-deflection relationship for the abutment wall. Current design codes make no allowance for skew effects on passive force; however, large scale field tests indicate that there is a substantial reduction in peak passive force as skew angle increases. A reduction in passive force also reduces the transverse shear resistance on the abutment. The purpose of this study is to validate three-dimensional model using PLAXIS 3D, against large scale test results performed at Brigham Young University and to develop a set of calibrated finite element models. The model set could be used to evaluate the variation in passive resistance with skew angle for various abutment geometries and backfill types. Initially, the finite element model was calibrated using the results from a suite of field tests where the backfill material consisted of dense compacted sand. Results were available for skew angles of 0, 15, 30 and 45°. Numerical model results were compared with measured passive force-deflection curves, ground surface heave and displacement contours, longitudinal displacements, and failure plane geometry. Soil properties were defined by laboratory testing and in-situ direct shear tests on the compacted fill. Soil properties and mesh geometries were primarily calibrated based on the zero skew test results. The results were particularly sensitive to the soil friction angle, wall friction angle, angle of dilatancy, soil stiffness and lateral restraint of the abutment backwall movement. Reasonable agreement between measured and computed response was obtained in all cases confirming numerically that passive force decreases as skew angle increases Additional analyses were then performed for abutments with different soil boundaries.

No description available.

This dissertation thesis focuses on the evaluation of modern machine tools, especially tools for finishing operations, with which the effect of the passive force components on the machining process is evaluated. The thesis will examine the analysis of creating chips and circumstances that accompany this process and substantially involve the formation of a new surface. The analysis of the process of the recording of the power load of the MT3 tool takes place in the experimental part of the thesis. MT3 is a reaming head intended for finishing holes at high cutting speeds (100-200 m.min-1) with removal of small cross section AD (0.024 mm2) chips. Particular attention is paid to the newly created profile from the surface after machining and evaluation of changes in geometry and loading of the cutting edge, which is significantly reflected in the establishment and the development of passive forces.

Correct understanding of passive force behavior is particularly key to lateral evaluations of bridges because plastic deformation of soil backfill is vital to dissipation of earthquake energy and thermally-induced stresses in abutments. Only recently have studies investigated the effects of skew on passive force. Numerical modeling and a handful of skewed abutment tests performed in sand backfill have found reduced passive force with increasing skew, but previous to this study no skewed tests had been performed in gravel or Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) backfills. The goal of this study was to better understand passive force behavior in non-skewed and skewed abutments with gravel and GRS backfills. Prior to this study, passive pressures in a GRS integrated approach had not been investigated. Gravel backfills also lack extensive passive force tests.Large-scale testing was performed with non-skewed and 30° skewed abutment configurations. Two tests were performed at each skew angle, one with unconfined gravel backfill and one with GRS backfill, for a total of four tests. The test abutment backwall was 11 ft (3.35 m) wide, non-skewed, and 5.5 ft (1.68 m) high and loaded laterally into the backfill. However, due to actuator loading constraints, all tests except the non-skewed unconfined gravel test were performed to a backfill height of 3.5 ft (1.07 m). The passive force results for the unconfined gravel test was scaled to a 3.5 ft (1.07 m) height for comparison.Test results in both sets of backfills confirmed previous findings that there is significant reduction in passive force with skewed abutment configurations. The reduction factor was 0.58 for the gravel backfill and 0.63 for the GRS backfill, compared to the predicted reduction factor of 0.53 for a 30° skew. These results are within the scatter of previous skewed testing, but could indicate that slightly higher reduction factors may be applicable for gravel backfills. Both backfills exhibited greater passive strength than sand backfills due to increased internal friction angle and unit weight. The GRS backfill had reduced initial stiffness and only reached 79% to 87% of the passive force developed by the unreinforced gravel backfill. This reduction was considered to be a result of reduced interface friction due to the geotextile. Additionally, the GRS behaved more linearly than unreinforced soil. This backfill elasticity is favorable in the GRS-Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) abutment configuration because it allows thermal movement without developing excessive induced stresses in the bridge superstructure.

The effects of seismic forces and thermal expansion on bridge performance necessitate an accurate understanding of the relationship between passive force and backwall deflection. In past case studies, skewed bridges exhibited significantly more damage than non-skewed bridges. These findings prompted studies involving numerical modeling, lab-scale tests, and large-scale tests that each showed a dramatic reduction in passive force with increased skew. Using these results, a correlation was developed between peak passive force and backwall skew angle. The majority of these tests had length to height ratios of 2.0; however, for several abutments in the field, the length to height ratio might be considerably higher than 2.0. This change in geometry could potentially affect the validity of the previously found passive force reduction correlation. To explore this issue, laterally loaded, large-scale pile cap tests were performed with densely compacted sand at a length of 11 ft (3.35 m) and a height of 3 ft (0.91 m), resulting in a length to height ratio of 3.7. The backwall interface was adjusted to fit three various skew angles including: 0°, 15° and 30°. The behavior of both the pile cap and adjacent soil backfill were monitored under these conditions. The peak passive force for the 15° and 30° tests were found to be 71% and 45%, respectively, of the peak passive force for the 0° skew test. These findings are relatively consistent with previously performed tests. Passive forces peaked at deflections between 2% and 5% of the backwall height, decreasing with skew angle. All skews exhibited a log spiral failure plane that transitioned into a linear plane. These results also agreed with previously reported values for large-scale passive force-deflection tests. Rotation of the pile cap was detected in the direction opposite to the skew. Higher pressures were found to be on both corners of the pile cap than in the middle portion, as is suggested by the elastic theory.

Skewed bridges have exhibited poorer performance during lateral earthquake loading in comparison to non-skewed bridges (Apirakvorapinit et al. 2012; Elnashai et al. 2010). Results from numerical modeling by Shamsabadi et al. (2006), small-scale laboratory tests by Rollins and Jessee (2012), and several large-scale tests performed by Rollins et al. at Brigham Young University (Franke 2013; Marsh 2013; Palmer 2013; Smith 2014; Frederickson 2015) led to the proposal of a reduction curve used to determine a passive force skew reduction factor depending on abutment skew angle (Shamsabadi and Rollins 2014). In all previous tests, a uniform longitudinal load has been applied to the simulated bridge abutment. During seismic events, however, it is unlikely that bridge abutments would experience pure longitudinal loading. Rather, an inclined loading situation would be expected, causing rotation of the abutment backwall into the backfill. In this study, a large-scale test was performed where inclined loading was applied to a 30° skewed bridge abutment with sand backfill and compared to a baseline test with uniform loading and a non-skewed abutment. The impact of rotational force on the passive resistance of the backfill and the skew adjust factor was then evaluated. It was determined that inclined loading does not have a significant effect on the passive force skew reduction factor. However, the reduction factor was somewhat higher than predicted by the proposed reduction curve from Shamsabadi and Rollins 2014. This can be explained by a reduction in the effective skew angle caused by the friction between the side walls and the back wall. The inclined loading did not change the amount of movement required to mobilize passive resistance with ultimate passive force developing for displacements equal to 3 to 6% of the wall height. The rotation of the pile cap due to inclined loading produced higher earth pressure on the obtuse side of the skew wedge, as was expected.These findings largely resolve the concern that inclined loading situations during an earthquake may render the proposed passive force skew reduction curve invalid. We suggest that the proposed reduction curve remains accurate during inclined loading and should be implemented in current codes and practices to properly account for skew angle in bridge design.

Skewed bridges have exhibited poorer performance during lateral earthquake loading in comparison to non-skewed bridges (Apirakvorapinit et al. 2012; Elnashai et al. 2010). Results from numerical modeling by Shamsabadi et al. (2006), small-scale laboratory tests by Rollins and Jessee (2012), and several large-scale tests performed by Rollins et al. at Brigham Young University (Franke 2013; Marsh 2013; Palmer 2013; Smith 2014; Frederickson 2015) led to the proposal of a reduction curve used to determine a passive force skew reduction factor depending on abutment skew angle (Shamsabadi and Rollins 2014). In all previous tests, a uniform longitudinal load has been applied to the simulated bridge abutment. During seismic events, however, it is unlikely that bridge abutments would experience pure longitudinal loading. Rather, an inclined loading situation would be expected, causing rotation of the abutment backwall into the backfill. In this study, a large-scale test was performed where inclined loading was applied to a 30 skewed bridge abutment with sand backfill and compared to a baseline test with uniform loading and a non-skewed abutment. The impact of rotational force on the passive resistance of the backfill and the skew adjust factor was then evaluated. It was determined that inclined loading does not have a significant effect on the passive force skew reduction factor. However, the reduction factor was somewhat higher than predicted by the proposed reduction curve from Shamsabadi and Rollins 2014. This can be explained by a reduction in the effective skew angle caused by the friction between the side walls and the back wall. The inclined loading did not change the amount of movement required to mobilize passive resistance with ultimate passive force developing for displacements equal to 3 to 6% of the wall height. The rotation of the pile cap due to inclined loading produced higher earth pressure on the obtuse side of the skew wedge, as was expected.These findings largely resolve the concern that inclined loading situations during an earthquake may render the proposed passive force skew reduction curve invalid. We suggest that the proposed reduction curve remains accurate during inclined loading and should be implemented in current codes and practices to properly account for skew angle in bridge design.

Skewed bridges have exhibited poorer performance during lateral earthquake loading when compared to non-skewed bridges (Apirakvorapinit et al. 2012; Elnashai et al. 2010). Results from small-scale laboratory tests by Rollins and Jessee (2012) and numerical modeling by Shamsabadi et al. (2006) suggest that skewed bridge abutments may provide only 35% of the non-skewed peak passive resistance when a bridge is skewed 45°. This reduction in peak passive force is of particular importance as 40% of the 600,000 bridges in the United States are skewed (Nichols 2012). Passive force-deflection results based on large-scale testing for this study largely confirm the significant reduction in peak passive resistance for abutments with longitudinal reinforced concrete wingwalls. Large-scale lateral load tests were performed on a non-skewed and 45° skewed abutment with densely compacted sand backfill. The 45° skewed abutment experienced a 54% reduction in peak passive resistance compared to the non-skewed abutment. The peak passive force for the 45° skewed abutment was estimated to occur at 5.0% of the backwall height compared to 2.2% of the backwall height for the non-skewed abutment. The 45° skewed abutment displayed evidence of rotation, primarily pushing the obtuse side of the abutment into the backfill, significantly more than the non-skewed abutment as it was loaded into the backfill. The structural and geotechnical response of the wingwalls was also monitored during large-scale testing. The wingwall on the obtuse side of the 45° skewed abutment experienced nearly 6 times the amount of horizontal soil pressure and 7 times the amount of bending moment compared to the non-skewed abutment. Pressure and bending moment distributions are provided along the height of the wingwall and indicate that the maximum moment occurs approximately 20 in (50.8 cm) below the top of the wingwall. A comparison of passive force per unit width suggests that MSE wall abutments provide 60% more passive resistance per unit width compared to reinforced concrete wingwall and unconfined abutment geometries at zero skew. These findings suggest that changes should be made to current codes and practices to properly account for skew angle in bridge design.

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.