Search

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]

Current limit equilibrium-based design methods for the internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls in North America are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Simplified Method. A deficiency of this approach is that the influence of the facing type on reinforcement loads is not considered. This paper reports the results of two instrumented full-scale walls constructed in a large test facility at the Royal Military College of Canada. The walls were nominally identical except one wall was constructed with a stiff face and the other with a flexible wrapped face. The peak reinforcement loads in the flexible wall were about three and a half times greater than the stiff-face wall at the end of construction and about two times greater at the end of surcharging. The stiff-face wall analysis using the Simplified Method gave a maximum reinforcement load value that was one and a half times greater than the measured value at the end of construction. Furthermore, the surcharge pressure required to reach the creep-limited strength of the reinforcement was about two times greater than the predicted value. The results demonstrate quantitatively that a stiff facing in a reinforced soil wall is a structural component that can lead to significant reductions in reinforcement loads compared to flexible facing systems. [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]