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]

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]

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam seismic buffers can be used to reduce earthquake-induced loads acting on rigid retaining wall structures. A numerical study was carried out to investigate the influence of wall height; EPS geofoam type, thickness, and stiffness; and excitation record on seismic buffer performance. The numerical simulations were carried out using a verified FLAC code. The influence of parameter values was examined by computing the maximum forces on the walls, the buffer compressive strains, and the relative efficiency of the buffer system. In general, the closer the predominant frequency of excitation to the fundamental frequency of the wall model, the greater the seismic loads and buffer compression. The choice of earthquake record is shown to affect the magnitude of maximum earth force and isolation efficiency. However, when the wall response for walls 3 to 9 m in height are presented in this study in terms of isolation efficiency, the data from scaled accelerograms and matching harmonic records with the same predominant frequency fall within a relatively narrow band when plotted against relative buffer thickness. For the range of parameters investigated, a buffer stiffness value less than 50 MN/m3 was judged to be the practical range for the design of these systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

In this paper the K-stiffness method is extended to the case of c-φ soils using data obtained from a total of nine new case studies – six from Japan and three from the USA. A common feature in this new data set is that the walls were all constructed with a vertical face using backfill soils with a range of fines content. The walls varied widely with respect to facing type. This new data set together with previously published data for vertical walls is now used to isolate the effect of soil cohesion on reinforcement loads within the framework of the original K-stiffness method. The new data set is used to calibrate a modified K-stiffness method equation that includes a cohesion influence factor. The modified K-stiffness method is demonstrated to quantitatively improve the estimate of the magnitude and distribution of reinforcement loads for internal stability design of vertical-faced geosynthetic reinforced soil walls with c-φ soil backfills when compared to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials simplified method. [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.

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]

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]

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]

The paper describes a numerical model that was developed to simulate the response of three instrumented, full-scale, geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under working stress conditions. The walls were constructed with a fascia column of solid modular concrete units and clean, uniform sand backfill on a rigid foundation. The soil reinforcement comprised different arrangements of a weak biaxial polypropylene geogrid reinforcement material. The properties of backfill material, the method of construction, the wall geometry, and the boundary conditions were otherwise nominally the same for each structure. The performance of the test walls up to the end of construction was simulated with the finite-difference-based Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) program. The paper describes FLAC program implementation, material properties, constitutive models for component materials, and predicted results for the model walls. The results predicted with the use of nonlinear elastic-plastic models for the backfill soil and reinforcement layers are shown to be in good agreement with measured toe boundary forces, vertical foundation pressures, facing displacements, connection loads, and reinforcement strains. Numerical results using a linear elastic-plastic model for the soil also gave good agreement with measured wall displacements and boundary toe forces but gave a poorer prediction of the distribution of strain in the reinforcement layers. [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]