Search

A numerical finite-difference method (FLAC) model was used to investigate the influence of constitutive soil model on predicted response of two full-scale reinforced soil walls during construction and surcharge loading. One wall was reinforced with a relatively extensible polymeric geogrid and the other with a relatively stiff welded wire mesh. The backfill sand was modeled using three different constitutive soil models varying as follows with respect to increasing complexity: linear elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb, modified Duncan-Chang hyperbolic model, and Lade’s single hardening model. Calculated results were compared against toe footing loads, foundation pressures, facing displacements, connection loads, and reinforcement strains. In general, predictions were within measurement accuracy for the end-of-construction and surcharge load levels corresponding to working stress conditions. However, the modified Duncan-Chang model which explicitly considers plane strain boundary conditions is a good compromise between prediction accuracy and availability of parameters from conventional triaxial compression testing. The results of this investigation give confidence that numerical FLAC models using this simple soil constitutive model are adequate to predict the performance of reinforced soil walls under typical operational conditions provided that the soil reinforcement, interfaces, boundaries, construction sequence, and soil compaction are modeled correctly. Further improvement of predictions using more sophisticated soil models is not guaranteed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The paper describes a new working stress design methodology introduced by the writers for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls (K-Stiffness Method) that is now extended to steel reinforced soil walls. A large database of full-scale steel reinforced soil walls (a total of 20 fully instrumented wall sections) was used to develop the new design methodology. The effects of global wall stiffness, soil strength, reinforcement layer spacing, and wall height were investigated. Results of simple statistical analyses using the ratio of measured to predicted peak reinforcement loads (i.e., method bias) demonstrate the improved prediction accuracy. The AASHTO Simplified Method results in an average method bias of 1.1 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 45%, whereas the proposed K-Stiffness Method results in an average bias of 0.95 and a COV of 32%. Soil strength was found to have limited influence on reinforcement loads for steel reinforced soil walls, especially for high shear strength soils, while global wall stiffness and wall height had a major influence on reinforcement loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]