Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

WHEEL LOAD EFFECTS ON BURIED ARCH


STRUCTURES
Doug Jenkins, Interactive Design Services Pty Ltd, Australia
Chris Lawson, Reinforced Earth Pty Ltd, Australia
ABSTRACT
Wheel loads are often a critical design case for buried arch structures, especially for structures
with shallow cover, or loaded by large mining vehicles. Analysis for wheel load effects on these
structures is normally carried out on the basis of a 2D analysis with simplified load distribution in
accordance with the Australian Standard Bridge Design Code, but the provisions of the code for
distribution of wheel loads through fill are based on classical elastic solutions for stress
distribution in uniform materials. They do not take account of non-linear soil behaviour, 3D
interaction effects between the soil and the structure or of the behaviour of structures with
differing longitudinal connectivity.
This paper provides a brief review of previous research and reports the results of a series of
non-linear 3D finite element analyses on typical concrete buried arch structures, comparing the
results with standard 2D analysis methods. The analyses include varying vehicle loads, fill
heights, and arch dimensions, and three different longitudinal arrangements, from independent
pre-cast segments to fully continuous structures.
The paper provides recommendations for the analysis and design for vehicle loads on buried
arch structures, both for critical design actions in the structure, and for prediction of structural
deflections.

INTRODUCTION
Loads due to heavy vehicles are often a critical design case for buried arch structures,
especially for those subject to very high loads from off-road vehicles, or for long span structures
subject to highway loading. The typical design procedures used for these structures employ a
2D plane strain finite element analysis, which models the distribution of the wheel loads through
the fill in the plane of the analysis, but not in the transverse direction. Provisions for distribution
of wheel loads through fill in the Australian Standard Bridge Design Code, AS 5100(1), are
based on classical elastic solutions for stress distribution in uniform materials, which do not take
account of non-linear soil behaviour, or of 3D interaction effects between the soil and the
structure.
This paper presents a brief review of previous research, and the results of 3D finite element
analyses of two typical arch structures, with three different longitudinal configurations, and 3
different fill heights; a total of 18 separate analyses. For each analysis the maximum
increments in bending moments are compared with the results of a 2D plane strain analysis with
wheel loads distributed in accordance with AS 5100.
The arch structures analysed were:
1. A typical mine haul road structure with loads due to maximum current weight earth moving
trucks (635 tonne)
2. A typical road structure, carrying a multi-lane road or rail line under a road with M1600
loading to AS 5100.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

For each structure the longitudinal configurations were:


1. Precast elements, 2 metres wide, with joints between elements arranged in line, so that
the structure consisted of independent 2 metre wide arches.
2. Precast elements, 2 metres wide, with joints between elements longitudinally offset at the
crown by 1 metre, providing limited connectivity along the length of the structure.
3. In-situ structure with full longitudinal connectivity.
In this report the arches are designated by the cross section type followed by the longitudinal
configuration; e.g. Type 2-3 is a Type 2 cross section (18.6 m span) with Type 3 longitudinal
configuration (continuous in-situ structure). Each structure type was analysed with fill heights
over the crown of 1.5 m, 3.0 m, and 6.0 m.
Further details of the arch dimensions and loading are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Arch Dimensions and Loading


Types 1-1, 1-2, 1-3

Types 2-1, 2-2, 2-3

Internal span, m

10.6

18.6

Internal height, m

7.0

8.0

Thickness, mm

300

400

CAT 797

M1600

Total vehicle load, kN

6237

1440

Maximum axle load, kN

4158

120

Axle width, m

9.53

2.4

Load type

PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The majority of previous research on the distribution of road vehicle wheel loads through fill
relates to loads on rectangular section structures, such as box culverts, or loads on pipes,
where the ratio of fill height to structure span is typically much greater than for the structures
considered in this paper. Soil-structure interaction effects are much less significant in these
structures, and a simple 2D analysis, with distribution through the fill based on elastic behaviour,
is appropriate. In addition to the Australian Bridge Design Code similar provisions are found in
most international codes, such as the AASHTO bridge code (2), (3).
Research considering longitudinal soil-structure interaction effects is much more limited.
Examples include a report from the University of Kansas (Han, Acharya et al. (4)) primarily
concerned with the effect of the road pavement on load distribution, and detailed analysis and
testing of wheel load effects on corrugated steel culverts by Moore, Brachman et al. (5). These
structure types have significantly different behaviour from reinforced concrete arch structures,
and neither of these reports considered the effect of different longitudinal connectivity
arrangements on the structural behaviour.
Research into appropriate 2D analysis procedures is much more extensive, including research
related to the CANDE analysis software by The Transportation Research Board (6), and a
number of papers by Jenkins (711). Research work includes independent analyses using
different finite element programs and monitoring of structures during construction. Procedures
for analysis of buried arch structures under uniform soil loading are therefore well established
and verified, but this level of verification has not yet been applied to the effects of wheel loads.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES


All analyses were carried out using the finite element program Strand7. Features common to
both 2D and 3D analyses were:

The model included the arch structure, surrounding fill, and foundation soils, with
boundaries sufficiently far from the structure to have negligible effect on the structure
behavior.

Fill soils were modelled as non-linear materials with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,
using typical short-term stiffness properties.

Arch and footing concrete, and foundation soils were modelled as linear-elastic in
accordance with usual design practice.

The analysis modelled the construction sequence, with fill materials placed in layers on
alternate sides of the arch, with a top of fill level difference of 1 metre.

Soil elements were connected to the arch with friction elements allowing sliding of the
soil around the arch.

After completion of the construction stage modelling to finished ground level a uniform
load of 30 kPa was applied to one half of the model, to check that the 2D and 3D models
gave similar results under uniform loading.

Point loads representing the design vehicles were then applied in the position found to
generate the maximum absolute moment increment in the arch structure. Further details
of the loads applied are given below.

No attempt was made to model the effect of concrete or asphalt paving, but the thin top soil
layer was given a small cohesion (compared with the strength of typical paving materials) of 20
kPa to help convergence of the model under high wheel loading.
Materials properties used in the analyses are shown in Table 2, and typical model layouts for the
2D and 3D analyses are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively, with details showing the use of
friction elements in Figure 3. The fill elastic modulus values were relatively high values,
intended to model typical behavior for good quality granular fill under short term loading. For
ultimate design analyses much lower values are appropriate, to model lower bound behavior
under long term loading. Reasons for the use of different friction angles of the fill materials
between the 2D and 3D models are discussed below.

2D Analysis
For the 2D analysis the soil was modelled with 8 node 2D plane strain plate elements, and the
arch with a series of short beam elements, connected to the soil with friction elements with a
length of half the arch section thickness. The arch elements were modelled as pinned at the
base and the crown. Boundary nodes were restrained in the X and Y directions at the base,
and in the X direction only at the sides.
A non-linear static analysis was carried out on each construction stage, with both material and
geometric non-linearity included. A 10 kPa compaction load was applied to the top of each fill
layer.
For the final fill stage the 10 kPa compaction load was applied and removed, then the following
live loads were applied:

30 kPa uniform load applied over half the model

Point loads representing the design heavy vehicle load, distributed over the fill depth in
accordance with AS 5100 requirements.

The vehicle loads were applied in the position that resulted in the greatest bending moment
increment in the 3D analysis.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 1: 2D Finite Element Model for Arch Type 1.

Figure 2: 3D Finite Element Model for Arch Type 1.

Figure 3: Finite Element Model Details; 2D and 3D.

Table 2: Materials Properties


2D Analysis

3D Analysis

20,000

20,000

Foundation soils Youngs Modulus, MPa

125

125

General Fill Youngs Modulus, MPa

50

50

General Fill Friction Angle, degrees

30

25

Select Fill Youngs Modulus, MPa

90

90

Select Fill Friction Angle, degrees

34

30

Poissons Ratio: all fill

0.3

0.3

Soil/concrete interface friction factor

0.5

0.5

Concrete Youngs Modulus, MPa

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The 2D model used for comparison with the 3D results had a mesh with the same element sizes
as a transverse plane through the 3D model. As a check on the sensitivity of the model to the
size of the mesh the 2D mesh was subdivided, increasing the total number of plate elements
from 239 to 669. Figure 3 shows a detail of the subdivided mesh. The maximum bending
moment under completed fill plus truck loading increased by only 2% in the finer mesh.

3D analysis
For the 3D analysis the soil was modelled with 8 node brick elements, and the arch with 8 node
plate shell elements, connected to the soil with friction elements in the same way as the 2D
model. The 3D model was generated by extruding the 2D model in the Z direction, with an
overall length of 20 metres. Base nodes were restrained in all three directions, the ends parallel
to the YZ plane were restrained in the X direction, and the sides parallel to the XY plane in the Z
direction. The XY plane was treated as a plane of symmetry, with the main vehicle path centre
line lying on this plane.
The precast arch elements were modelled as 1 metre wide plates, using rigid links to join plates
to model the three different longitudinal configurations.
The 3D analysis was carried out in layers, with 10 kPa compaction load, followed by a 30 kPa
load over half the model, as for the 2D analysis. Point loads representing the vehicle loading
were generated by the Strand7 moving load analysis, and the load position that generated the
greatest absolute moment increment was extracted for replication in the 2D analysis. For the
mining truck loading the applied loads were equivalent to a single truck. For the M1600 loading
the applied loads were equivalent to 3 loaded lanes. Since the loading was applied as a
symmetrical load the full load was applied to the central lane, and the adjacent lane had a
reduction factor of 0.8. The loading was therefore equivalent to one lane loaded with a factor of
1.0, and both adjacent lanes with a factor of 0.8, rather than the 0.8 and 0.4 factors for the
second and third loaded lanes, as specified in AS 5100.

ANALYSIS RESULTS
The analysis results are summarised in Figures 4 to 17. Figures 4 to 11 show results under
dead load or uniform live load, showing that the 2D and 3D analyses produced consistent
results under these conditions. Figures 12 to 17 show the bending moment increment due to
heavy vehicle loading, and show significantly different results in the 2D and 3D analyses. In
each of the graphs:

The X axis shows distance from the arch crown, measured around the arch.

Each graph shows results (deflections or bending moments) around the arch for a
specified arch type (Type 1 or Type 2) and fill height (1.5 m, 3 m or 6 m).

The 2D results are not affected by the longitudinal configuration. Results are shown as
2D-1 or 2D-2.

Each graph shows 3D results for each of the longitudinal configurations (1 = segmental, 2
= offset segmental, 3 = continuous), shown as 3D1-1, 3D1-2, 3D1-3 for the Type 1 arch
(10.6 m span), or 3D2-1, 3D2-2, 3D2-3 for the Type 2 arch (18.6 m span).

Construction sequence and uniform load


Deflections and bending moments around the arch at Increment 11 (completion of fill to finished
ground level at 1.5 m cover) are shown for Arch Type 1 in Figures 4 to 6 and Arch Type 2 in
Figures 7 to 9. It was found that when the same soil properties were used in the 2D and 3D
analyses the arch deflections under un-balanced soil loading were significantly greater in the 2D
analysis. In order to achieve good agreement between the analyses it was found to be
necessary to reduce the soil friction angle for the 3D analysis, as shown in Table 2. The greater

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

stiffness of the 3D model is due to the use of 8 node brick elements. Better results may be
achievable with 16 or 20 node bricks, at the expense of considerably increased run-time.
The bending moment increment due to the uniform live load of 30 kPa is shown in Figures 10
and 11, for Arch Type 1 and 2 respectively. The bending moments for the Type 2 Arch showed a
good match between the 2D and 3D analyses, and results were acceptably close for Type 1.

Heavy vehicle loads


The increments in bending moment due to the CAT 797 load on Arch Type 1 are shown for the 3
fill heights (1.5 m, 3.0 m, and 6.0 m over the arch crown) in Figures 12 to 14, and results for the
M1600 load on Arch Type 2 are shown in Figures 15 to 17.
For the minimum 1.5 m fill over the crown the 2D analysis is very conservative compared with
the 3D results. The longitudinal configuration of the arch also had a significant effect on the
results, with the Type 1 configuration (in-line joints) having maximum bending moment
increments about 40-50% higher than Type 3 (fully continuous). The Type 2 configuration was
approximately mid-way between Type 1 and 3 for bending moments under the wheel load, and
close to Type 3 for the peak moments on the other side of the arch crown, which in both
structures was the location of the absolute maximum bending moment.
Horizontal Deflection; Type 1 Arch, Increment 11, 1.5m Cover
15

Deflection, mm

10

-10

5
0
-5

10

-5
-10
-15
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 4: Horizontal Deflections Arch Type 1, Completed Fill.


Vertical Deflection; Type 1 Arch, Increment 11, 1.5 m Cover
10

Deflection, mm

-10

0
-5

10

-5
-10
-15
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 5: Vertical Deflections Arch Type 1, Completed Fill.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Bending Moment; Type 1 Arch, Increment 11, 1.5 m Cover


90
80

Bending Moment, kNm

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

-10

-5

0
0
-10
Distance From Crown, m

2D-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-1

10

3D-1-3

Figure 6: Bending Moments Arch Type 1, Completed Fill.


Horizontal Deflection; Type 2 Arch, Increment 11, 1.5 m Cover
8
6

Deflection, mm

-14

2
0
-9

-4

11

-2
-4
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 7: Horizontal Deflections Arch Type 2, Completed Fill.


Vertical Deflection; Type 2 Arch, Increment 11, 1.5 m Cover
0
-14

-9

-4

11

Deflection, mm

-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 8: Vertical Deflections Arch Type 2, Completed Fill.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Bending Moment; Type 2 Arch, Inc. 11, 1.5 m Cover


150

Bending Moment, kNm

100

-14

50
0
-9

-4

11

-50
-100
-150
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 9: Bending Moments Arch Type 2, Completed Fill.


Bending Moment; Type 1 Arch, Inc. 12 - 11, 1.5 m Cover
40
30

Bending Moment, kNm

20
10
0

-10

-5

-10

10

-20
-30
-40
-50
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 10: Bending Moments Increment for Uniform 30 kPa Load; Arch Type 1.
Bending Moment; Type 2 Arch, Inc. 12-11, 1.5 m Cover
60
40

Bending Moment, kNm

20
-14

0
-9

-4

-20

11

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 11: Bending Moments Increment for Uniform 30 kPa Load; Arch Type 2.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Bending Moment; Type 1 Arch, Inc. 15 - 11, 1.5 m Cover


100

Bending Moment, kNm

50

-10

0
-5

10

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 12: Bending Moments Increment for CAT 797 Load; Arch Type 1; 1.5 m Cover.
Bending Moment; Type 1 Arch, Inc. 16 - 12, 3.0 m Cover
60

Bending Moment, kNm

40

-10.0

20
0
-5.0

-20

0.0

5.0

10.0

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 13: Bending Moments Increment for CAT 797 Load; Arch Type 1; 3.0 m Cover.
Bending Moment; Type 1 Arch, Inc. 18 - 16, 6.0 m Cover
10

Bending Moment, kNm

5
-10

0
-5

-5

10

-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Distance From Crown, m
2D-1

3D-1-1

3D-1-2

3D-1-3

Figure 14: Bending Moments Increment for CAT 797 Load; Arch Type 1; 6.0 m Cover.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Bending Moment; Type 2 Arch, Inc. 15-11, 1.5 m Cover


40

Bending Moment, kNm

20
-14

0
-9

-4

-20

11

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 15: Bending Moments Increment for M1600 Load; Arch Type 2; 1.5 m Cover.
Bending Moment; Type 2 Arch, Inc. 18-14, 3.0 m Cover
30
20

Bending Moment, kNm

10
-14

0
-9

-4

-10

11

-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 16: Bending Moments Increment for M1600 Load; Arch Type 2; 3.0 m Cover.
Bending Moment; Type 2 Arch, Inc. 19-16, 6.0 m Cover
15

Bending Moment, kNm

10

-14

5
0
-9

-4

11

-5
-10
-15
-20
Distance From Crown, m
2D-2

3D-2-1

3D-2-2

3D-2-3

Figure 17: Bending Moments Increment for M1600 Load; Arch Type 2; 6.0 m Cover.
With 3.0 m fill over the crown the 2D analysis had greatly reduced moment increments for the
Type 1 section, with bending moments approximately equal to the 3D results for longitudinal
configurations 2 and 3. The Type 1 longitudinal configuration gave the highest absolute
moment increment, being about 20% higher than the other analyses. For the Type 2 section the

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

10

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

pattern seen with 1.5 m cover was repeated, with the 2D results being much more conservative
than any of the 3D analyses, but all bending moments were reduced by about 50%, compared
with the 1.5 m cover results.
With 6 metres cover the moment increment from the 2D analysis for Section Type 1 was
significantly less than that for any of the 3D analyses; however in this case the live loading
reduced the maximum absolute bending, so none of the results would be critical. For Section
Type 2 the 2D maximum moment increment results were similar to the 3D results for Type 2-1,
with the maximum moment from Types 2-2 and 2-3 being about 30% lower.

DISCUSSION
3D soil-structure interaction effects
For loads uniform along the length of the structure it would be expected that a 2D plane strain
analysis would give results very close to those from a 3D analysis with equivalent boundary
conditions, since strains in the Z direction will be zero, in both the 2D and 3D analyses.
Preliminary analyses for this paper found that the 3D analyses tended to be significantly stiffer
when using identical soil properties. This is believed to be because of the different behaviour of
the 8 node 2D plane strain plate element and the 8 node 3D brick element, particularly with
regard to Mohr-Coulomb stresses under low confining pressure. Fair to good agreement
between the 2D and 3D analyses was achieved by reducing the soil friction angle for the 3D
analyses.
For non-uniform loads soil-structure interaction effects can be expected to significantly change
the behaviour of the structure, when analysed in 3D:

The structure immediately under the point of loading will deflect downwards, tending to
increase the lateral spread of the applied load

Continuous structures will distribute loads to the base through bending along the length of
the structure, as well as in-plane bending.

Resisting soil pressures will be distributed along the structure, particularly for continuous
structures, or precast structures with joints longitudinally offset at the crown.

These effects would be expected to be greatest with shallow cover over the arch, where
longitudinal distribution of pressures through the soil will be restricted.

The results of the analyses were broadly in line with the expected behaviour, with all 3D
analyses with 1.5 metres cover showing large reductions in the bending moment increment due
to live load, and a greater reduction with longitudinal configuration Types 2 and 3. With
increased cover the difference between the 2D and 3D analyses reduced as expected, however
there were significant differences in the behaviour of the Type 1 and Type 2 sections, with no
obvious means of predicting this behaviour, other than carrying out a detailed 3D analysis. For
the structures examined in this report the 2D analysis results ranged between conservative and
approximately equal to the 3D results, however it is possible that in some cases a 2D analysis
with high cover will give unconservative results.

CONCLUSIONS
The major findings from the comparison of 2D and 3D finite element analyses were:

The bending moments in the structures under uniform load were sensitive to the fill friction
angle. Due to the different behavior of the 8 node brick elements, compared with the 2D 8
node plane strain elements, it was necessary to reduce the fill friction angle in the 3D
analyses to get consistent results under uniform loads.

With 1.5m fill the bending moment increment due to heavy vehicle loading was
significantly less in the 3D analyses than in the 2D analyses. The moment reduction was

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

11

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

greatest for the continuous structures (longitudinal configuration Type 3), and least for
precast structures with fully independent segments (Type 1), with intermediate results for
longitudinal configuration Type 2 structures.

The difference between the 2D and 3D analyses reduced with increasing fill height.

The relative difference in results between the 2D and 3D analyses was different for the two
arch sections, with no obvious simple method to predict the 3D results, other than carrying
out the full 3D analysis.

The increase in bending moment due to live load found in the 2D analyses was greater
than or approximately equal to the results from the corresponding 3D analyses for all
cases examined in this study, but it is possible that the 2D analysis might be
unconservative for high fills in some cases.

Based on the analyses described in this paper the following recommendations are made for the
analysis and specification of buried arch structures with heavy vehicle loading and/or large
spans:

Use a good quality granular select fill around the arch, with design based on long term
lower bound values for the fill stiffness and friction angle. A typical fill elastic modulus
value used for design purposes is 30-50 MPa, compared with the values of 90 MPa used
in this study.

For a cover of 1.5 m over the arch crown the 2D analysis results were found to be
conservative. Considering the uncertainties in the number and effect of long term
repetitions of maximum loads, a conservative approach is considered appropriate, and
use of 3D analysis for design purposes is not recommended without further investigation
and verification of the results.

For higher covers the 2D analysis results were found to be less conservative. A 2D
analysis in conjunction with high estimated friction angles may in some circumstances be
unconservative, but use of lower bound values for the fill friction angle and stiffness will
ensure conservative results overall.

Use of a longitudinal configuration with precast element joints offset at the crown was
found to significantly improve the distribution of wheel loads, with maximum bending
moments being reduced to close to the value achieved with a fully continuous structure.
This configuration is recommended for use where heavy vehicle loading is the critical
design load, and/or there are significant uncertainties in the magnitude or number of
repetitions of maximum vehicle loads.

Heavy vehicle loads in conjunction with shallow cover will often result in large variations in
reinforcement stresses. AS 5100 provisions for fatigue stress range limits must be
observed.

Verification of 3D analysis results by monitoring the deflection behavior of actual structures


under heavy vehicle loading would be highly desirable.

REFERENCES
1. Standards Australia, AS 5100-2004, Australian Standard Bridge Code, SAI Global,
Sydney.
2. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, AASHTO, Washington,
USA
3. Beakley, J (2010), The Use of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with
Culverts, American Concrete Pipe Association, Irving, USA
4. Han, J; Acharta, R. et al. (2013), Improved Load Distribution for Load Rating of Low-Fill
Box Structures, The University of Kansas

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

12

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

5. Moore I.D., Brachman, R.W.I., et al. (2012), Large-Scale Laboratory Experiments to


rd
Advance the Design and Performance of Buried Pipe Infrastructure, The 3 International
Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless Technology, Wuhan, China
6. NCHRP (2008), Modernize and Upgrade CANDE for Analysis and LRFD Design of Buried
Structures, Transportation Research Board, Washington
7. Jenkins, D. (1997), Analysis of Buried Arch Structure: Performance versus Prediction,
Concrete Institute of Australia Concrete Conference, Adelaide
8. Jenkins, D. (2005), Soil Loads on Cut and Cover Tunnels Under High Fills Australian
Geomechanics Society Mini-symposioum, Sydney
9. Jenkins, D. (2007), Finite element modelling of load shed and non-linear buckling
solutions of confined steel tunnel liners ANZ Geomechanics Conference, Brisbane
10. Jenkins, D. (2007), Settlement of Precast Culverts Under High Fills Concrete Institute of
Australia Concrete Conference, Adelaide
11. Jenkins, D. (2009), Analysis and Design of Large Span Arch Structures under High Fills
Austroads Bridge Conference, Auckland

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Doug Jenkins: Doug Jenkins is an independent consultant, specialising in the analysis and
design of bridges, abutments, buried arch structures and reinforced soil retaining walls,
including the application of advanced analysis techniques to the design of these structures. He
has 40 years experience in the design of bridges, including major projects in Australia and
many overseas countries, including UK, Middle East, Turkey, Japan and Malaysia. In addition
to design and verification of bridges and related structures his current activities include condition
surveys and reports, forensic investigations, software development, and training and lecturing.
He is currently National President of the Concrete Institute of Australia.
Chris Lawson: Chris Lawson is the Engineering Manager at Reinforced Earth Pty Ltd in
Australia. He is a civil engineer and specialises in retaining wall and bridge design, buried arch
structures and construction and maintenance for over 25 years. Chris is also a member of the
Reinforced Earth group international technical committee and is responsible for engineering and
R&D activity within the Asia Pacific region.
Copyright Licence Agreement
th

The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9 Austroads Bridge
Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
publish the work in printed format
publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

13

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi