Search

The paper presents the numerical modelling details using the finite difference method (FDM) to simulate the performance of a well-instrumented geogrid-reinforced incremental concrete panel soil retaining wall. Two different constitutive models were investigated for the backfill soil (linear elastic-plastic model and nonlinear elastic-plastic model). Both constant stiffness and strain-dependent secant stiffness models were used for the reinforcement elements. The paper provides valuable lessons to modellers to simulate the performance of this type of earth retaining structure. For example, parametric investigation of the effect of a constant Young's modulus ranging from 40 to 120 MPa for the linear-elastic Mohr-Coulomb model had only minor influence on the wall facing displacements and reinforcement loads. However, the choice of magnitude of transient compaction pressure near the facing can result in large differences in facing displacements. The paper also demonstrates that the method of construction including the location, sequence, and stiffness of the temporary supports used to construct the wall plays an important role on measured and predicted wall performance. The physical measurements reported in this paper provide a benchmark for numerical modellers to verify other numerical models for walls of the type investigated here. [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]

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 describes an experimental investigation in which two large-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil embankments and one unreinforced soil embankment were taken to collapse under a strip footing placed close to the crest. One reinforced embankment was constructed with a relatively extensible and weak polypropylene geogrid and the second with a relatively strong and stiff high-density polyethylene geogrid. The geometry of the unfaced embankments, sand soil, and loading arrangement were the same for all three structures. The focus of the paper is on the experimental design, construction, testing, and instrumentation techniques used in the investigation and selected test results. The results of the study show that the ultimate footing load capacity increased with an increase in reinforcement strength (and stiffness) and that the reinforced soil embankments had a load capacity up to 1.6–2.0 times that of the nominal identical control embankment without reinforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes limit equilibrium analyses of two large-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil embankments and one unreinforced soil embankment that were taken to collapse under a strip footing placed close to the crest. One reinforced embankment was constructed with a relatively extensible and weak polypropylene geogrid and the second with a relatively strong and stiff high-density polyethylene geogrid. The geometry of the embankments and the loading arrangement were the same for all three structures. The focus of the paper is on a comparison of the predicted collapse load for the three structures and the actual observed values. A three-dimensional analytical approach is used to account for possible side-wall friction effects due to the test facility in which the large-scale experimental models were built. The paper also reports details on the interpretation of in-isolation constant load tests and strain measurements used to infer tensile loads in the reinforcement at failure. An important conclusion is that a general two-part wedge analysis approach can be used to predict the collapse footing load for both unreinforced and reinforced sand embankments in this investigation provided careful attention is paid to the selection of soil shear strength and reinforcement tensile capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]