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.)

Two nominal identical 4 m high steel strip reinforced soil walls varying only with respect to reinforcement layer length arrangement were constructed and instrumented in an indoor laboratory environment. A novel feature of the tests was a foundation arrangement that allowed for simulated loss of toe support. Both walls performed well at the end of construction (EOC). Predicted unfactored maximum reinforcement tensile loads at the EOC using four different load models were judged to be conservative (safe for design) based on comparison with measured loads for both walls. Reinforcement loads were observed to increase with decreasing toe support, particularly at the base of the walls. A fully developed composite soil failure mechanism propagating from the heel of the foundation bulkhead and behind the reinforcement layers was observed during excavation of the stepped base wall model. There were no visual indications of soil failure within or behind the wall with longer uniform reinforcement lengths. However, predicted EOC loads for this wall were exceeded for most layers after loss of toe support. Implications for the design, analysis and performance of steel strip reinforced soil walls with similar reinforcement arrangements constructed over initially competent soil foundations and then subject to loss of toe support are identified. [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 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 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]

Abstract: The calibration of default pullout capacity models for smooth and ribbed steel strip reinforcement, used in reinforced soil walls in Japan, was carried out more than two decades ago and was based on a small number of physical tests available at that time. The writers have collected and organized a much larger database of more than 600 laboratory pullout box and in situ pullout tests from among the Japanese literature. The new database is a useful reference for design engineers to match project-specific soils to previous pullout tests and to check the accuracy of the current lower-bound design curves proposed in the late 70s and 80s. Today, only the ribbed-type steel reinforcement strips are used. The new data show that a three-parameter exponential function better captures the trend in pullout data for ribbed steel reinforcement than the current bi-linear models adopted from European practice. The formulations also have the advantage of being smoothly continuous with depth. Parameter values are determined for default pullout models that can be used in load and resistance factor design (LRFD) and for the current lower-bound (factor of safety) allowable stress design (ASD). The current PWRC model and a newly proposed model for ribbed steel strip reinforcement, that include the soil coefficient of uniformity (U c ) in their formulations, are shown to be no more accurate than the simpler default models without this term. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: More than 30,000 steel strip reinforced soil walls have been built in Japan since their introduction in the early 1970s. The current Japanese method of computing tensile loads in the reinforcement strips is based on the Coherent Gravity Method first developed in France more than three decades ago. At that time, the method was calibrated against measured loads from seven instrumented structures based on soil friction angles in the range of 35–46°. In Japan, however, there are many reinforced soil walls that have been built successfully using cohesive-frictional soils with fines contents as high as 35% and lower friction angles. The present paper uses the results of load measurements from 18 instrumented wall sections, reported previously in the literature, and nine instrumented Japanese walls to examine the prediction accuracy of the Coherent Gravity Method described in the Public Works Research Center (2003) guidelines. The current design chart for the coefficients of earth pressure, used to compute tensile reinforcement loads, is empirically adjusted for soil backfills falling into three different friction angle ranges. The new design chart is calibrated to satisfy an average load exceedance level that matches the value adopted when the Coherent Gravity Method was first calibrated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

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.)

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]

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.)

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.

The focus of the paper is on the influence of reinforcement design parameters (i.e. stiffness, length and vertical spacing) on the simulated earthquake response of reinforced soil retaining walls using reduced-scale model shaking table tests. A series of instrumented 1/6-scale model walls was constructed and dynamically loaded using a stepped-amplitude harmonic base acceleration record. The reinforcement design parameters investigated were found to have a significant effect on model response. Experimental results showed that the magnitude of accumulated facing lateral displacement under base excitation decreased with increasing reinforcement length, greater number of reinforcement layers and larger reinforcement stiffness. Significant down-drag forces at the back of the rigid facing were measured for all model configurations. However, the measured vertical load at the footing was not significantly influenced by changes in reinforcement parameters. The horizontal restrained (hinged) toe at the bottom of the rigid facing was shown to attract 30–60% of the total horizontal earth force depending on the reinforcement configuration. The magnitude and distribution of reinforcement connection loads was significantly affected by the reinforcement length, vertical spacing and stiffness. Measured footing loads, reinforcement connection loads and amplification factors are compared to values calculated using current practice in North America for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and discrepancies between experimental results and design methods are identified. Implications of the physical test results to level of conservatism in current design practice are noted. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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.)

The construction and surcharge loading response of four full-scale reinforced-soil segmental retaining walls is simulated using the program FLAC. The numerical model implementation is described and constitutive models for the component materials (i.e., modular block facing units, backfill, and four different reinforcement materials) are presented. The influence of backfill compaction and reinforcement type on end-of-construction and surcharge loading response is investigated. Predicted response features of each test wall are compared against measured boundary loads, wall displacements, and reinforcement strain values. Physical test measurements are unique in the literature because they include a careful estimate of the reliability of measured data. Predictions capture important qualitative features of each of the four walls and in many instances the quantitative predictions are within measurement accuracy. Where predictions are poor, explanations are provided. The comprehensive and high quality physical data reported in this paper and the lessons learned by the writers are of value to researchers engaged in the development of numerical models to extend the limited available database of physical data for reinforced soil wall response. [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]

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.)