<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Practical Retaining Wall and Girder Design for Constrained Areas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2659364</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A transit maintenance yard has been designed to facilitate the expansion of the public transportation system in Metro Vancouver. The project involves several key yard structures, including a single-span road overpass, retaining walls, and a guideway embankment that have been designed to address and resolve numerous site constraints. The paper will discuss these constraints and their successful resolution, including design rationale and criteria adopted in the detailed design which was completed in March of 2024. The yard is bounded by both existing heavy rail tracks and an underground pipeline to the north, a river to the east and south, and a major road to the west. This necessitates careful planning and design to accommodate the proposed maintenance buildings, utilities, and transit tracks within the limited space. Proximity of the pipeline and river also involved constructability considerations in the design. The road overpass is a 30-meter long single-span prestressed concrete box girder bridge gaining access to the interior of the storage tracks. It features a clear deck width of 7.150 meters, accommodating one lane of oversized tra8ic in each direction for the delivery of transit cars to/from the site, with a raised sidewalk on the south side. The superstructure is supported on MSE wall perched abutments with concrete spread footings founded on granular pads. Box girders were chosen for their benefits in minimizing formwork and field adjustments, particularly in seismic design. Three Retaining Walls (RWs) serve various functions, including retaining access roads and parking lots, providing grade separation for the yard access, future tracks and sidewalk. RW1 is a castin- place concrete cantilever wall, selected for its ability to accommodate buried utilities. RW2 is a reversed cantilever wall, designed to maximize site usage while maintaining grade separation from an existing adjacent roadway. RW3 utilizes top-down excavation and permanent soil anchors to minimize excavation costs. The guideway embankment employs standard precast MSE retaining wall structures to address geometric constraints and mitigate settlements. Miscellaneous other walls, including Lock Block walls, are designed to meet specific site requirements and maintain grade di8erences. The design adheres to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CSA S6:19 and the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure standards. Seismic design considerations are based on site-specific geotechnical reports, with the site classified primarily as Soil Site Class C. The road overpass is assigned to Seismic Performance Category 3, ensuring compliance with performance criteria for single-span bridges.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:52:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2659364</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Integral bridge with full height abutment requirement and design</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306866</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many level crossings have been removed in Victoria. Typically, they are single span or two span bridges over existing rail tracks and without batter in front of abutment to allow rail maintenance access. AS5100-2017 & BTN010 requires integral bridge to avoid any joints. AS5100.1-2017 requires minimum 800mm thick for abutment wall including RSS wall abutment for rail collision load. 800mm thick wall of 3.6m and 2.0m above rail height is to be provided when abutment face is less than 4m from the rail centre line to abutment face and more than 4m respectively. MTM standards requires 800mm thick wall when abutment is located within 10m from near or future track, but it allowed to use 900mm diameter piles at 2.0m spacing with reinforced concrete infill pile walls subject to MTM approval. However, infill wall to be designed for the collision load and the reinforced soil strap (RSS) wall system should protect abutment piles from collision load. DoT Section 682 also requires abutment piles to be independent of RSS wall to avoid any load transfer to abutment piles from RSS walls. RSS wall will require 800mm thick for almost half the height and piled foundation for rail collision load. Abutment piles independent of RSS walls will need to be large enough. In order to satisfy all requirements, full height abutment walls have been used to support bridge structure as well as to retain soil for an economical design and to reduce rail occupation over existing rail tracks.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:55:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306866</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and construction of civil structures on Mordialloc Bypass</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306795</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Jacobs worked for McConnell Dowell – Decmil Joint Venture consortium and Major Road Projects Victoria to design the Mordialloc Bypass. It comprises a four-lane carriageway, and the design allows for a future project upgrade to a six-lane freeway within the current footprint and layout of bridge structures. Jacobs carried out the civil and structural design. The author managed the design and provided construction phase support for the portal and cantilevered traffic sign structures, retaining walls, off-structure and bridge barriers, noise walls and Super-T girder bridges. It is one of the first projects in Victoria with civil structures designed to AS 5100-2017 and associated VicRoads Bridge Technical Notes (BTNs). The design development and construction phase support resolved unfavourable soil conditions, predicted settlements and piling issues within the old landfill site, and avoided relocation of existing services such as pressurised gas and oil pipes and sewer mains at Old Dandenong Road and wetland viaducts. It also covers the design of the portal and cantilevered traffic sign gantries and supporting structures attached to bridges using circular hollow sections to comply with the latest Vicroads BTN fatigue requirements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:53:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306795</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Additional lateral soil pressure due to vehicle (at constant speed): the distribution and comparison to its static load</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306682</link>
      <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:40:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2306682</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>St. Jacques-Pullman MSE Walls - Lessons Learned</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1682705</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) structures are retaining walls with compacted soil that is reinforced with inclusions consisting of horizontally placed elements. MSE walls reinforced with steel elements are classified as inextensible. In some applications, the steel reinforcing elements connect to a facing component. The type of soil reinforcing and the corresponding facing will depend on the structure application.  This paper will discuss the challenges associated with the design of tiered MSE wall application. The paper will explain what a tiered MSE wall is and how global and compound stability are performed. Also, it will describe the roles and responsibilities of the Geotechnical Engineer and the MSE Engineer and how the roles can overlap becoming shared responsibilities and to manage them. To demonstrate, a recent successful example project will be used to demonstrate these issues. The selected project is the St. Jacques-Pullman Interchange project located in Montreal, Quebec. The owner is the ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 14:59:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1682705</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The performance of modular block walls reinforced with geogrid subject strong ground motions during the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647590</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The existing Dashwood Bridge on State Highway 1 over the railway line was a pinch point and quite dangerous with the high number of trucks using it. The bridge was built in 1932 in a continuous 4 span concrete beam, and no longer met the NZTA seismic standards. It was decided, due to the strategic route strategy risk, that a new structure was required with improved alignment across the railway. One of the main design considerations was the seismic load case (acceleration specified was 0.6g), because the structure is located only 12km from a large earthquake of Mw = 6.5 which occurred on 21st August 2013 (17km depth, and 20km east of Seddon). The 70-week project was started in January 2014 and the Keystone TW3 walls were started at the end of June 2014 taking approximately 1 month to complete the two walls, one at each end of the culvert. The 2016 Kaikoura earthquake occurred at two minutes after midnight on 14th November 2016 in the north eastern part of the South Island of New Zealand, with magnitude Mw = 7.8. This resulted in the Keystone TW3 reinforced soil retaining walls at Dashwood being subjected to an equivalent of the design ULS seismic event, with no signs of any distress.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647590</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Proceedings of the 13th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics Perth, Western Australia, 1-3 April, 2019</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647589</link>
      <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647589</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Challenges in geotechnical design for infrastructure projects</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647580</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Modern infrastructure projects present a number of key challenges for the geotechnical engineering professional. Major influences in terms of uncertainty and risk, commercial drivers and sustainability are explored in the context of two case studies in South East Queensland: a large scale linear highway development and the remediation of a small but critical crib wall.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647580</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Motorway cut slope and foundation treatment design and construction over loose ground susceptible to liquefaction</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647578</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Waikato Expressway is one of New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) seven roads of National Significance. These roads are aimed at unlocking economic potential through increased movement of people and freight between the country’s largest population centres. Coffey was part of the Hamilton Section City Edge Alliance engaged (CEA) by NZTA to prepare a geotechnical design for the new motorway. This included both temporary and permanent design and construction monitoring of embankments, cut slopes, retaining walls and ground improvement works. The project site comprises 22km of motorway. Mangaharakeke gully at southern Sector 7 is the most challenging geotechnical area of the project. The design includes stabilization and support of 14m batter slopes, fill embankments on loose ground which is subject to high potential liquefaction. The design process was governed by liquefaction and lateral spreading assessment. However, in the New Zealand geotechnical industry, there are different understandings of yield acceleration assessment and lateral spreading criteria. This paper presents that an iterative analyses approach which was carried out to assess yield acceleration using “the most suitable” soil shear strength. This iterative analysis reached a soil residual shear strength at yield Peak Ground Acceleration scenario for the lateral spreading assessment. With this assessment, a combined comprehensive solution was designed and constructed, including a soil nail wall, dynamic replacement, soldier piles, and contiguous pile wall. Comprehensive numerical analyses were carried out to assess road cut slopes, embankment stability over loose ground and associated deformations. This paper summarises the key components in the development of design analysis and outlines innovative solutions to issues of liquefiable cut slope support and loose ground improvement design and construction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647578</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and construction of soil nail wall on the basis of unsaturated soil mechanics</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647570</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The effective stress concept for unsaturated soils was applied to the design and construction of up to a 8.9m high soil nail wall excavation as part of an expressway construction project on the western side of Adelaide, South Australia. As the excavation depth is permanently above the water table, the long-term behaviour of the retained stiff clays are unsaturated and a component of the shear strength is governed by soil suction. Some of the design and construction challenges encountered for the subject soil nail walls are: (i) the effect of clay swelling on the design of nail head and shotcrete facing; (ii) the adverse impacts of sand lenses and the nearby existing sewer trenches on wall excavation; and (iii) the variability of soil nail bond stresses encountered in clays and sandy soils. This paper describes the design and construction aspects of the soil nail wall structure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647570</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Optimisation of bridge approach embankments and retaining wall foundations design using wet soil mixing ground treatment</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647562</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Excessive differential settlements at bridge approach embankments and associated retaining wall foundations have often been a major problem when constructed over thick soft soil. Deep Wet Soil Mixing (WSM) ground treatment columns have been designed to reduce such settlements for a new bridge approach with widened embankments, retaining wall foundations and transition zones at the Stage 3B Lisarow upgrade of the existing Pacific Highway within the Central Coast region of NSW, Australia. The approach embankments are to be supported by a combination of reinforced soil wall and “L” shaped reinforced concrete wall over 220m length, which are to be constructed over about 20m thick very soft to firm clays with interlayered loose to medium dense clayey sand and stiff clay. This paper presents the project’s complex geology, a case history of ground improvement option selection, WSM design optimisation and detailed design resulting in significant project cost savings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647562</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transmission Gully Bridge 20 temporary works</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647554</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Transmission Gully project comprises a new 27 km motorway located north of Wellington on New Zealand’s North Island. It is currently under construction and is due to open in 2020. The alignment traverses rugged terrain requiring large-scale earthworks and numerous bridges. The complexity of the project is compounded by the high seismicity of the area. Significant temporary works were required to enable the construction of Bridge 20. The excavation for Pier 1, the larger of the two footing excavations, required a sub-vertical cut face with a height of 22 m. Due to the fractured rock mass and steep terrain, the construction of the cut slopes involved consideration of geotechnical risks associated with rockfall, slope instability, and seismicity. The base of Pier 1 extends below the level of a creek, and required construction of an anchored sheet pile wall to retain the creek and underlying saturated alluvial soils.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:51:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647554</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures for transportation: from walls to bridges</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647544</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The development and construction of various types of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) structures, mainly for railways, for the last thirty five years in Japan is described. In the 1980’s, GRS retaining wall (RW) with full-height rigid (FHR) facing was developed. The FHR facing is constructed firmly connected to reinforcement layers after the reinforced backfill and subsoil has deformed sufficiently. In the early 1990’s, GRS Bridge Abutment supporting one end of a simple girder at the top of the FHR facing was developed. In the early 2000’s, GRS Integral Bridge was developed, which structurally integrates both ends of a continuous girder to the top of the FHR facings of a pair of GRS RWs. The total wall length of these GRS structures became about 180 km by the end of 2018 with no problematic case. The use of FHR facing, the staged construction of FHR facing and the structural integration for GRS Integral Bridge are the three major breakthroughs for the development of these GRS structure technologies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:50:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647544</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design, Construction, Maintenance and Inspection Guide for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511335</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are a mature earth retention technology but concerns sometimes arise over who retains ultimate responsibility for wall design, quality assurance, asset management and repairs, and post-construction in-service monitoring, particularly if significant construction or performance problems occur. This guide provides owners, engineers, suppliers and contractors of MSE walls with practical guidance on the selection, design, construction, and inspection of these structures with a focus on public works projects. The guide was developed through reviews of published literature supplemented by a survey of industry stakeholders. It is not intended to reproduce the large volume of published design guidance and related information; rather the guide highlights aspects of the current state of practice in Canada and suggests modifications of current practice where deficiencies are apparent.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 15:12:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511335</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparison between AASHTO and CHBDC Design Methods for MSE Retaining Wall and its Implications on Transportation Agencies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511322</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) structures have been used in their current form since the early 1970s. MSE structures have become the solution of choice over traditional retaining wall systems due to their reduced material costs, ease of installation, and improved performance. This results in a retaining wall system that has a reduced carbon footprint when compared to other retaining wall systems such as Cast-in-Place wall systems. Design of MSE structures has progressed from using the Allowable Stress Design(ASD) method to the Load and Resistance Factored Design (LRFD) method. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) implemented the LRFD method to design MSE structures in 2002 and has established load and resistance factors through calibration to the ASD method, experience and collaboration with the MSE industry. This paper will compare the design of an inextensible reinforced MSE wall system using the latest edition of Canadian Highway Bridge Code (CHBDC, CAN/CSA-S6-14) to the AASHTO (2014) LRFD Bridge Design Specification. This paper will demonstrate how the CHBDC new changes increase the cost of a typical MSE structure. Indirectly, it will demonstrate the present sustainability issues being faced with the current CHBDC design method including, an increase in the steel reinforcement required to be manufacture and the additional select MSE fill that will be required to be processed and shipped to site, resulting in an increase in the carbon footprint for the structure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 15:11:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1511322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>