Search

The paper describes load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for the resistance factor used in the Stiffness Method internal stability soil failure limit state for geogrid mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The Stiffness Method was recently adopted in the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials LRFD Bridge Design Specifications in the US, and will appear in the next edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. The paper describes the details of the calibration of the soil failure limit state which is unique to the Stiffness Method. Calibration outcomes include consideration of the concept of level of understanding in the selection of nominal load and resistance values which is unique to LRFD foundation engineering practice in Canada. A practical conclusion from these calculations is that if product line-specific creep test data are available to estimate the reinforcement secant creep stiffness used for design, then a resistance factor of 1.0 is reasonable for US practice. If only minimum average roll value tensile strength data are available, then a value of 0.95 is recommended for US practice. For Canadian practice, the corresponding values for typical level of understanding are 0.90 and 0.85, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current limit equilibrium-based design methods for the internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls in North America are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Simplified Method. A deficiency of this approach is that the influence of the facing type on reinforcement loads is not considered. This paper reports the results of two instrumented full-scale walls constructed in a large test facility at the Royal Military College of Canada. The walls were nominally identical except one wall was constructed with a stiff face and the other with a flexible wrapped face. The peak reinforcement loads in the flexible wall were about three and a half times greater than the stiff-face wall at the end of construction and about two times greater at the end of surcharging. The stiff-face wall analysis using the Simplified Method gave a maximum reinforcement load value that was one and a half times greater than the measured value at the end of construction. Furthermore, the surcharge pressure required to reach the creep-limited strength of the reinforcement was about two times greater than the predicted value. The results demonstrate quantitatively that a stiff facing in a reinforced soil wall is a structural component that can lead to significant reductions in reinforcement loads compared to flexible facing systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]