Search

The Simplified Method as reported in AASHTO and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manuals has been demonstrated to give poor predictions of unfactored reinforcement loads and strains, especially for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. The writers have proposed the K-stiffness Method to improve the load prediction accuracy for walls under working stress (operational) conditions. However, it has also been recognized in recent publications by the writers and others that further improvements to the K-stiffness Method are needed. Furthermore, acceptance of the K-stiffness Method has been hindered due to its perceived complexity and the use of the plane strain friction angle to quantify the strength of the reinforced soil. This paper takes a fresh look at both methods and uses lessons learned from the K-stiffness Method development to improve the accuracy of the AASHTO/FHWA Simplified Method. Key parameters introduced during the development of the K-stiffness Method are applied to the Simplified Method and updated to further improve load prediction accuracy. Additional wall case histories have been added to the database used for the original K-stiffness Method to calibrate the new model and to broaden its utility. An important improvement is a single model that allows for seamless load prediction across a range of walls constructed with relatively extensible geosynthetic reinforcement and inextensible steel reinforcement materials. The quantitative improvement of the new model (Simplified Stiffness Method) compared to the current AASHTO/FHWA Simplified Method is demonstrated through statistical analysis of load bias values (i.e., the ratio of measured to predicted reinforcement load). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The paper provides a synthesis of work by the writers that has the objective of developing a new working stress method for the calculation of reinforcement loads in geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. As a precursor to this objective, careful back-analyses of a database of instrumented and monitored full-scale field and laboratory walls are used to demonstrate that the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Simplified Method used in North America results in excessively conservative estimates of the volume of reinforcement required to generate satisfactory long-term wall performance. The new design method captures the essential contributions of the different wall components and properties to reinforcement loads. The method is calibrated against measured in situ wall reinforcement loads using a careful interpretation of reinforcement strains and the conversion of strain to load using a suitably selected reinforcement stiffness value. A novel feature of the method is to design the wall reinforcement so that the soil within the wall backfill is prevented from reaching a failure limit state, consistent with the notion of working stress conditions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The paper reports the details of numerical models used to predict the performance of two 3.6 m-high well-instrumented wrapped-face walls. The walls were nominally identical except that the reinforcement material in one wall was a steel welded wire mesh and in the other a biaxial polypropylene geogrid. The backfill soil was modelled using both linear and nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive models. A general hyperbolic (nonlinear) axial load-strain-time model was used for the reinforcement. The numerical results show good agreement with measured performance features for the welded wire mesh wrapped-face wall. Agreement between numerical predictions of facing displacements and maximum reinforcement loads was less accurate for the very flexible geogrid wrapped-face wall. The discrepancies are believed to be related to the unusually flexible wrapped face used in the geogrid wall construction. Numerically predicted and measured maximum reinforcement loads are compared to loads using the AASHTO reinforcement strength-based design approach (Simplified Method) and the Simplified Stiffness Method which is an empirical reinforcement stiffness-based method. The paper provides physical test data that can be used to benchmark other numerical models, highlights lessons learned during the development of the models, and identifies reasonable expectations for numerical model accuracy for models of similar complexity used to simulate the performance of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall structures under operational conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports numerical model details and predictions of the end-of-construction performance for two instrumented and well-documented mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The walls were constructed as part of the highway SR-18 approach fills for a bridge near Seattle, Washington. The geogrid reinforced block face walls were modeled using a commercially available two-dimensional (2D) finite-difference program. The paper provides details on how material properties were selected from laboratory testing of wall components and how the computer modeling was carried out. The paper shows that predicted wall deformations and reinforcement strains were in reasonable agreement with measured data using both linear elastic-plastic and nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive models for the soil. The geogrid reinforcement was simulated using a nonlinear load-strain-time secant stiffness model and cable elements. The paper compares numerical predictions of reinforcement loads at end of construction with measured values and predictions using a AASHTO Simplified Method, K-stiffness Method, and Simplified Stiffness Method. The paper is a useful benchmark for modelers because it demonstrates what the authors believe are reasonable expectations of model accuracy for Class C predictions of deformations and reinforcement strains for these types of walls when high-quality project information is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: North American design codes are now committed to the development of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for reinforced soil structures including internal stability limit states. Reliability-based analysis is required to carry out these calibrations. A framework for LRFD calibration has been proposed by the writers that requires bias statistics for load and resistance terms for each limit state function. In this paper the formulation of the limit state for reinforcement tensile rupture is developed and the component strength-reduction bias statistics identified. The paper describes how to compute bias statistics from project-specific installation damage trials for use in reliability-based design for the reinforcement rupture limit state or using data from multiple sources for LRFD calibration. A database of results from field installation damage trials on 103 different geosynthetic products was collected from 20 different sources. A total of 799 and 2248 in-air tensile test results were reviewed for undamaged and damaged geosynthetic specimens, respectively. This database is used to compute installation damage bias statistics for six different categories of geosynthetic and four categories of backfill soils classified according to the D 50 particle size. A practical outcome is that for analysis purposes, bias statistics can be grouped into two ranges for each geosynthetic type based on D 50 of the soil greater than or less than 19 mm. The paper shows how bias statistics together with load and resistance factors for the geosynthetic rupture limit state function recommended by can be used to calculate probability of failure using Monte Carlo simulation and demonstrates the sensitivity of probability of failure to magnitude of installation damage bias statistics. The installation damage data is valuable for future LRFD calibration to select resistance factors for use in design codes for the geosynthetic rupture limit state in reinforced soil structures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]