Search

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 results of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration are reported for the pullout limit state in geogrid reinforced soil walls under self-weight loading and permanent uniform surcharge. Bias statistics are used to account for the prediction accuracy of the underlying deterministic models for load and pullout capacity and the random variability in the input parameters. The paper shows that the current AASHTO simplified method to calculate reinforcement loads under operational conditions is overly conservative leading to poor prediction accuracy of the underlying deterministic model used in LRFD calibration. Refinements to the load and default pullout capacity models in the AASHTO and Federal Highway Administration guidance documents are proposed. These models generate reasonable resistance factors using a load factor of 1.35 and give a consistent probability of pullout failure of 1%. A comparison with the allowable stress design (ASD) past practice shows that the operational factors of safety using a reliability-based LRFD approach give factors of safety greater than 1.5. Regardless of the design approach (ASD or LRFD), the analysis results demonstrate that the current empirical minimum reinforcement length criteria will likely control the design for pullout. [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]

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]

This paper reports the results of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for pullout and yield limit states for steel grid reinforced soil walls owing to soil self-weight loading plus permanent uniform surcharge. The calibration method uses bias statistics to account for prediction accuracy of the underlying deterministic models for reinforcement load, pullout capacity and yield strength of the steel grids, and random variability in input parameters. A new revised pullout design model is proposed to improve pullout resistance prediction accuracy and to remove hidden dependency with calculated pullout resistance values. Load and resistance factors are proposed that give a uniform probability of failure of 1% for both pullout and yield limit states. The approach adopted in this paper has application to a wide variety of other reinforced soil wall technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response to the discussions made by Robert K. Barrett and Dov Leshchinsky on the authors' paper "The influence of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls." They appreciate the comments raised by Barrett and Leshchinsky. In doing so, they clarify and elucidate a number of points related to the details and contingents of the test program described in the referring paper. Moreover, they provide various implications to current practice.

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 investigates the accuracy of the coherent gravity method by using measurements reported in a large database of full-scale instrumented walls that was not available at the time the original method was developed. The new database includes data for bar mat, welded wire and steel strip soil reinforced walls. Measured reinforcement loads under operational conditions are compared with predicted values for bar mat and steel strip reinforced walls. The accuracy of the coherent gravity method as presented in the BS 8006 design standard is quantified by computing the mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio (bias) of measured to predicted loads. The paper shows that for steel strip walls the coherent gravity method is reasonably accurate for soils with friction angles less than 458. For granular soils with higher friction angles and bar mat walls, the current coherent gravity method is shown to be less accurate and, on average, non-conservative for design. Modifications to the method as currently described in BS 8006 are proposed to improve the accuracy of the method for bar mat reinforced soil walls and steel strip reinforced soil walls with high friction angle backfill soils. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]