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]

A high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid soil-reinforced dry-cast concrete block retaining wall 6.3-m high was designed using the K-stiffness method as part of a highway-widening project southeast of Seattle, Washington. The amount of reinforcement needed for the original wall design using the K-stiffness method was approximately 50% of that required using the AASHTO simplified method. This paper describes the construction, instrumentation program, and interpretation of the measurements. Geogrid strains were measured using strain gauges and extensometers attached to reinforcement layers. An extensive materials testing program was conducted to characterize the backfill soil properties and geogrid stiffness properties and to calibrate strain gauge readings. The reinforcement loads deduced from the measured strains are compared with Class A, B, and C1 predictions using the AASHTO simplified and K-stiffness methods. These comparisons demonstrate that the simplified method significantly overestimated reinforcement loads, whereas the K-stiffness method provided estimates that were consistent with the measured results. This paper describes lessons learned, the influence of construction activities on wall performance, and the limitations of both methods in estimating connections loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The grade raising associated with the Third Runway Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport included construction of tall mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, including the near-vertical, two-tier, 26-m North MSE wall and the near-vertical, four-tier, 46-m tall west MSE wall. Twenty reinforcement strips at critical wall cross sections were instrumented with over 500 strain gauges to monitor strains during and following construction. The reinforcement loads inferred from observed strains are of interest because of their great height and global reinforcement stiffness, which place these walls outside the range in height and stiffness used to calibrate commonly used design methods. This paper presents the development and distribution of reinforcement strains measured during and following the construction of these walls. The reinforcement stresses calculated using the original reinforcement load design methods and design friction angle agreed with those inferred from the measured strains. The accuracy of two standard-of-practice and two alternate design methods is evaluated by comparing the reinforcement loads inferred from measured strains to those calculated using the actual friction angle of the reinforced fill material. Advantages and limitations in these design methods are identified, and recommendations for the improvement of some of these methods are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rigorous probabilistic-based approach for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration of internal stability tensile rupture and pullout limit states for geogrid reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls is presented. Load and resistance factors are provided for different combinations of the load model with pullout model and the tensile strength model used in current practice. The load models are the AASHTO Simplified Method and the Simplified Stiffness Method. Resistance factors are tabulated for use in LRFD foundation practice in Canada which rewards designers with larger resistance factors for greater project level of understanding. Resistance factors are also provided that are amenable to US practice where the notion of level of understanding is not explicitly considered in LRFD practice. The paper demonstrates the application of the load and resistance factors for tensile rupture and pullout internal stability limit states using a design example and shows the reduction in required reinforcement strength using the Simplified Stiffness Method. The paper is of value to practitioners and LRFD code writers in the United States and Canada for future revisions of design specifications in their jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper demonstrates load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for tensile strength and pullout strength limit states for steel strip mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls using a reliability theory-based approach. The analyses adopt load models found in current North American LRFD specifications in combination with a coupled mechanical-corrosion model for the reinforcement tensile strength and pullout models found in design guidelines and in the research literature. Resistance factors for prescribed load factors and different load and resistance model combinations are compiled in tables. The limitations of the LRFD approach to generate resistance factors that are judged to be acceptable based on current practice are demonstrated. The challenges to generate consistent design outcomes with the same margin of safety expressed probabilistically are identified, and the link to reliability-based design is described. Example designs are provided to show the impact on steel reinforcement quantities and length when using different models in combination with proposed and current specified load and resistance factors. The calibration outcomes will be of value to code writers in Canada and the US for MSE wall design sections in the next editions of national geotechnical foundation LRFD codes. [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]

The paper reports the results of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for pullout and yield limit states for steel strip reinforced soil walls under self-weight loading. An important feature of the calibration method is the use of bias statistics to account for prediction accuracy of the underlying deterministic models for reinforcement load, pullout capacity and yield strength of the steel strips, and random variability in input parameters. To improve the accuracy of reinforcement load predictions, small adjustments to current semiempirical American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) load design charts are proposed. Similarly, current empirical-based design charts found in AASHTO and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance documents for the estimation of the pullout resistance factor for smooth and ribbed steel strips are adjusted to improve the accuracy of pullout capacity predictions. The results of calibration lead to a load factor of 1.35 that is consistent with current practice and resistance factors that together give a consistent probability of failure of 1% for all three limit states considered. Furthermore, comparison with allowable stress design (ASD) past practice (AASHTO simplified method) shows that the operational factors of safety using a rigorous LRFD approach give the same or higher factors of safety and lower probabilities of failure. In this study, data for steel strip reinforced soil walls are used as an example to illustrate rigorous reliability theory-based LRFD calibration concepts. However, the general approach is applicable to other reinforced soil wall technologies and calibration outcomes can be updated as more data become available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response is from the authors to the reviewers of their article “Predicted Loads in Steel Reinforced Soil Walls Using the AASHTO Simplified Method” which is in Volume 135 of the February 2009 issue is presented.

The paper investigates the accuracy of the AASHTO simplified method by using load measurements reported in a large database of full-scale instrumented walls for bar mat, welded wire, and steel strip soil reinforced walls. The accuracy of the AASHTO simplified method is quantified by computing the mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio (bias) of measured loads under operational conditions to predicted loads. The paper shows that for steel strip walls, the AASHTO simplified method is reasonably accurate for granular backfill soils with friction angles less than 45°. For bar mat walls, the method is demonstrated to be slightly conservative. The simplified method underpredicts reinforcement loads at shallow overburden depths for steel strip walls with backfill friction angles greater than 45° due to compaction-related effects. It is concluded that these compaction-induced loads near the wall top do not contribute to internal instability due to pullout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]