Search

This paper demonstrates reliability-based design for tensile rupture and pullout limit states for mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls constructed with geosynthetic (geogrid) reinforcement. The general approach considers the accuracy of the load and resistance models that appear in each limit state equation plus uncertainty due to the confidence (level of understanding) of the designer at the time of design. The reliability index is computed using a closed-form solution that is easily implemented in a spreadsheet. The general approach provides a quantitative link between nominal factor of safety, which is familiar in allowable stress design practice, and reliability index used in modern civil engineering reliability-based design practice. A well-documented MSE wall case study is used to demonstrate the general approach and to compare margins of safety using different load and resistance model combinations. A practical outcome from the case study example is the observation that the pullout limit state is much less likely to control design than the ultimate tensile rupture state for walls with continuous reinforcement coverage. The more accurate "simplified stiffness method" that is used to compute tensile loads in the reinforcement under operational conditions is shown to generate a more cost-effective reinforcement option than the less accurate American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) simplified method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports the details of numerical models used to predict the performance of two 3.6 m-high well-instrumented wrapped-face walls. The walls were nominally identical except that the reinforcement material in one wall was a steel welded wire mesh and in the other a biaxial polypropylene geogrid. The backfill soil was modelled using both linear and nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive models. A general hyperbolic (nonlinear) axial load-strain-time model was used for the reinforcement. The numerical results show good agreement with measured performance features for the welded wire mesh wrapped-face wall. Agreement between numerical predictions of facing displacements and maximum reinforcement loads was less accurate for the very flexible geogrid wrapped-face wall. The discrepancies are believed to be related to the unusually flexible wrapped face used in the geogrid wall construction. Numerically predicted and measured maximum reinforcement loads are compared to loads using the AASHTO reinforcement strength-based design approach (Simplified Method) and the Simplified Stiffness Method which is an empirical reinforcement stiffness-based method. The paper provides physical test data that can be used to benchmark other numerical models, highlights lessons learned during the development of the models, and identifies reasonable expectations for numerical model accuracy for models of similar complexity used to simulate the performance of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall structures under operational conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geosynthetic-reinforced and column-supported (GRCS) embankments have proven to be an effective construction technique for fills on soft foundations. The paper introduces a modified unit cell approach to model GRCS embankments supported by deep mixed column walls. The modified unit cells include linear elastic springs at one or both vertical boundaries to simulate lateral displacements of the embankment fill and foundation soil. The finite difference program FLAC is used to compare numerical outcomes using the modified unit cells with those using the typical unit cell arrangement with lateral rigid side boundaries. Numerical results demonstrate good agreement between simulations using small-strain and large-strain modes in some cases and large differences in other cases. Lateral displacements of the embankment fill and foundation soil using the modified unit cells are shown to have large influence on reinforcement loads. Finally the paper demonstrates that calculated reinforcement loads are sensitive to choice of small-strain or large-strain mode when using program FLAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and slopes are now a mature technology in geotechnical engineering. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of soil-geosynthetic interaction are not fully understood for pullout of a geogrid material in the anchorage zone of a reinforced structure. It is also difficult to quantify the interactions between the geogrid and the soil. A new strategy to overcome these difficulties is to use a pullout box with a transparent glass bottom, a transparent soil, and non-contact measurement technology. This paper describes such a pullout box apparatus which is used in combination with a recently developed transparent granular soil. Embedded geogrid specimens are visible through the transparent bottom of the box and the surrounding soil. The displacements of the geogrid and seed (target) particles placed in the transparent soil are tracked using digital images captured by a row of synchronized cameras located below the apparatus. Digital processing is carried out using the Digital Image Correlation (DIC) technique to quantify the in-situ displacement of the geogrid specimen and surrounding soil. The displacements are used to compute continuous longitudinal strain profiles in the geogrid specimen over the duration of each pullout test and relative shear displacements between the geogrid and the soil. Also reported are lessons learned to improve the method of clamping geogrid specimens at the front of the pullout box which are also applicable to conventional pullout box equipment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A verified fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC) numerical model is used to investigate the influence of horizontal toe stiffness on the performance of reinforced soil segmental retaining walls under working stress (operational) conditions. Results of full-scale shear testing of the interface between the bottom of a typical modular block and concrete or crushed stone levelling pads are used to back-calculate toe stiffness values. The results of numerical simulations demonstrate that toe resistance at the base of a reinforced soil segmental retaining wall can generate a significant portion of the resistance to horizontal earth loads in these systems. This partially explains why reinforcement loads under working stress conditions are typically overestimated using current limit equilibrium-based design methods. Other parameters investigated are wall height, interface shear stiffness between blocks, wall facing batter, reinforcement stiffness, and reinforcement spacing. Computed reinforcement loads are compared with predicted loads using the empirical-based K-stiffness method. The K-stiffness method predictions are shown to better capture the qualitative trends in numerical results and be quantitatively more accurate compared with the AASHTO simplified method. [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]

Abstract: The paper describes two constitutive models for the simulation of expanded polystyrene (EPS) seismic buffer shaking table tests previously reported by the writers. The first model is linear elastic–plastic with Mohr–Coulomb criterion and Rayleigh damping. The second is called the equivalent-linear method (ELM) which incorporates hysteretic load–unload cycles using Masing-type functions and strain-dependent shear modulus and damping ratio functions. The constitutive models were applied to both the geofoam buffer and sand backfill in both approaches. Both models are shown to capture qualitative features of measured peak load-time response of the physical tests. The advanced ELM model gave predictions that were closer to the measured results for the seismic buffer test with the most compressible EPS when model accelerations and total wall forces were greatest. However, the simpler model is judged to be sufficiently accurate for practical purposes when the dynamic force increment is considered only. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

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 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]

Proper estimation of soil reinforcement loads and strains is key to accurate internal stability design of reinforced soil structures. Current design methodologies use limit equilibrium concepts to estimate reinforcement loads for internal stability design of geosynthetic and steel reinforced soil walls. For geosynthetic walls, however, it appears that these methods are excessively conservative based on the performance of geosynthetic walls to date. This paper presents a new method, called the K-stiffness method, that is shown to give more accurate estimates of reinforcement loads, thereby reducing reinforcement quantities and improving the economy of geosynthetic walls. The paper is focused on the new method as it applies to geosynthetic walls constructed with granular (noncohesive, relatively low silt content) backfill soils. A database of 11 full-scale geosynthetic walls was used to develop the new design methodology based on working stress principles. The method considers the stiffness of the various wall components and their influence on reinforcement loads. Results of simple statistical analyses show that the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Simplified Method results in an average ratio of measured to predicted loads (bias) of 0.45, with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 91%, whereas the proposed method results in an average bias of 0.99 and a COV of 36%. A principle objective of the method is to design the wall reinforcement so that the soil within the wall backfill is prevented from reaching a state of failure, consistent with the notion of working stress conditions. This concept represents a new approach for internal stability design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls because prevention of soil failure as a limit state is considered in addition to the current practice of preventing reinforcement rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The choice of structure element to simulate soil reinforcement and soil–structure interaction details for numerical modelling of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls can have a significant influence on numerical outcomes. Program FLAC (finite difference method) offers three different options (beam, cable and strip element) to model the reinforcement and program PLAXIS (finite element method) has two (beam and geogrid element). Both programs use different models and properties to simulate the mechanical behaviour of the interface between dissimilar materials. The paper describes the details of the linear elastic Mohr–Coulomb interface model available in the two software packages to model material interaction and how to select model parameters to give the same numerical outcomes. The numerical results quantitatively demonstrate the conditions that give good agreement between the two programs for the same steel strip reinforced soil–structure problem and the situations where they do not. For example, the paper demonstrates that results can be very different depending on the type of structure element used to model horizontal reinforcement layers that are discontinuous in the plane-strain direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]