CE 5101 Lecture 9 Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring

OCT 2013 Prof Harry Tan

Outline
Consolidation Monitoring Principles Case 1 Muar Tests Embankments Case 2 Bangkok 2nd International Airport Case 3 German Housing Project

Objectives of Back Analysis

Calibrate the soil properties by matching FEM predictions with field measurements for the embankment constructed to failure Study the effect of PVD installation on the stability and performance of the embankment constructed on PVD stabilized foundation soil using the calibrated soil properties

Introduction Muar Tests

Site Condition
Depth, m +2.5m RL +0.5 Crust Upper Clay Lower Clay Peat -15.9 -19.9 Sandy Clay Sand Soil Description
Yellowish brown mottled red CLAY with roots, root holes and laterite concretions Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells, very thin discontinuous sand partings, occasional near vertical roots and some decaying organic matter (<2%) Grey CLAY with some shells, very thin discontinuous sand partings and some decaying organic matter (<2%) Dark brown PEAT with no smell Greyish brown sandy CLAY with a little decaying organic matter Dark grey, very silty medium to coarse SAND (SPT>20)

c (kPa) 110 40

kh (m/sec) 4x10-9

-5.6

60

1x10-9

-15.2

60 -

2x10-9 -

Site Condition

PVD Properties
Drainage Length, l (m) 18.0 Drain Spacing, s (m) 1.3 Equivalent Diameter, dw (m) 0.07 Influence Zone Diameter, de (m) 1.365 Smeared Zone Diameter, ds (m) 0.4

Triangular Layout

Loading Characteristics for Embankment Constructed to Failure

Embankment constructed directly on the subsoil Fill compacted in 0.2m layers at a nominal rate of 0.4m per week until failure occurred Coupled consolidation analysis was performed

FEM Model of Embankment Constructed to Failure

Fill (15 Layers)
20 m

GWT at 1.75m below ground surface

Crust Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
2m 6.4 m

Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)

10 m

Sandy Clay
80 m

4.1 m

Soil Properties Used In FEM Analysis

References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)
sat (kN/m3) 15.5 c (kPa) 1 (o ) 20 kh (m/day) 1.3E-4 kv (m/day) 6.9E-5 Material RL (m) Upper Clay Lower Clay +0.5 -6.0 -6.0 -15.9 * *

0.13

0.05

0.15

15.5

22

0.11

0.08

9.5E-5

6.0E-5

0.15

Soft Soil Model

10

Soil Properties Used In FEM Analysis

References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)
Material RL (m) Fill Crust Sandy Clay +2.5 +0.5 -15.9 -20.0 sat unsat (kN/m3) (kN/m3) 20.5 16.5 20.5 14.5 c (kPa) 19 20 (o ) 26 26 E (kPa) 5200 14000 kh (m/day) 1.0 1.3E-4 kv (m/day) 1.0 6.9E-5 0.3 0.3

16.0

16.0

10

22

2500

9.5E-5

6.0E-5

0.3

Mohr Coulomb Model

11

Instrumentation Plan of Embankment Constructed to Failure

Plan View

Elevation View

12

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

10 3 8 Excess Porewater Pressure (m) Excess Porewater Pressure (m)

Piezometer P2 Piezometer P7

2 6

4 1 Field Measurement Field Measurement FEM Prediction FEM Prediction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 Thickness Thickness of of Fill Fill (m) (m) 4 4 5 5 6 6

13

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

3 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 -10 -1 -1 2 2 2 4 4 6 4 6 8 6 8 10 12 10 8

Reduced Level Level (m) (m) Reduced Reduced Level (m)

-3 -3 -3

-5 -5 -5 -7 -7 -7 -9 -9 -9 -11 -11 -11 -13 -13 -13

Fill Height 3m Fill Height == 5m Fill Height = 4m

Field Measurement Field Measurement FEM Prediction FEM Prediction

ExcessPorewater PorewaterPressure Pressure (m) Excess (m) Excess Porewater Pressure (m)

14

Lateral Displacement
3 0.6

At Failure Height
1 0

Field Measurement
0.1 Prediction FEM 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

-1

Lateral Displacement Reduced Level (m) (m)

0.4 -3

-5

Inclinometer I3

-7 0.2

-9

Field Measurement FEM Prediction

-11

0
-13 0

3 Thickness of Fill (m) Lateral Movement (m)

15

Surface Settlement Profile

0.2 0.2 0.2

FillHeight Height= =5m 3m 4m Fill

0 0 0 Vertical Movement (m) Vertical Movement (m) Vertical Movement (m) 0 0 0 5 5 5 10 10 10 15 15 15 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 30 30 35 35 35

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.4 -0.6 -0.6

Field Measurement Field Field Measurement Measurement FEM Prediction FEM Prediction FEM Prediction

-0.6 -0.8 -0.8

Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m) Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)

16

Actual Failure Mode of Embankment

30m from toe

17

FEM Predicted Failure Mode of Embankment

Upper Clay

30 m

18

Cross Section of Embankment on PVD Stabilized Foundation Soil

19

Construction Sequence of Embankment on PVD Stabilized Foundation Soil

Stage Fill Periods (Days) 1 - 14 105 - 129 Fill Thickness (m) 0.0 2.57 2.57 4.74 Rate of Filling (m/day) 0.18 0.09 Rest Period (days) 14 105 129 - present

1 2

Coupled Consolidation Analysis was performed

20

FEM Model of Embankment on PVD Stabilized Soil

43 m 20 m

Soil Parameters were the same as that of the embankment constructed to failure. GWT at 1.75m below ground surface
Crust Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2) Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2) Sandy Clay
2m 6.4 m 10 m 4.1 m

Fill PVD Stabilized Zone

36 m 135 m

21

PVD Modeling Technique (Equivalent Vertical Permeability)

n kh 3 2l 2kh = ln( ) + ln(s) + s kr 4 3qw
where l n = =

k ve

2 .5l 2 k h = (1 + )k v 2 D e k v
Verified by Tay, E.L (2002)

Drainage length

de dw
Diameter of unit cell Diameter of drain

de dw s

= = =

ds dw
Diameter of smear zone Horizontal permeability of natural soil Horizontal permeability of smear zone Discharge capacity of PVD Vertical permeability of natural soil
22

ds kh kr qw kv

= = = = =

PVD Modeling Technique

kh kr

kh / kr
Spacing (m) H(m) Configuration Material kv (m/day) qw (m3/yr) dw (m) de (m) n dm (m) ds (m) s Material

12 1.3 18 Triangular

12

General

Crust 6.9E-5

Upper Clay 6.9E-5 100 0.07 1.365 19.5 0.2 0.4 5.714

Lower Clay 6.0E-5

Axisymmetric Radial Flow

Crust 5.99E-3

Upper Clay 2.66E-3 100

Lower Clay 1.97E-3

23

Equivalent Flow

kve (m/day) qw (m3/yr)

Instrumentation Plan of Embankment on PVD Stabilized Soil

24

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

8 8 9 7 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 100 100 150 150 200 250 200 200 250 250 Time(days) (days) Time Time (days) 300 300 300 350 350 350 400 400 400 450 450 450

Piezometer P2

Excess Porewater Porewater Pressure Pressure (m) (m) Excess

Piezometer P6 Piezometer P3

Field Measurement FieldMeasurement Measurement Field FEM Prediction (PVD) FEMPrediction Prediction(PVD) (PVD) FEM FEM Prediction (W/O PVD) FEM Prediction PFEM Prediction(W/O (W/OPVD) PVD)

25

Ground Settlement at 23m From Centerline of Embankment

0 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 Verical Movement Movement (m) (m) Vertical 50 50 100 100 150 150 200 200 250 250 300 300 350 350 400 400 450 450

-0.4 -0.6

Ground Surface
-0.8 -0.6 -1 Field Measurement Field Measurement -0.8 -1.2 FEMPrediction Prediction(PVD) (PVD) FEM FEMPrediction Prediction(W/O (W/OPVD) PVD) FEM -1.4 -1 Time (days) Time (days)

5.5m Below Ground Surface

26

Surface Settlement Profile

0.2 0.2 0 0 -0.2 0 0 Verical Movement (m) Vertical Movement (m) -0.4 -0.2 0 0 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 30 40 40 40 50 50 50 60 60 60 70 70 70 80 80 80 90 90 90 100 100 100

-0.2 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 Field Measurement Field Field Measurement Measurement FEM Prediction (PVD) FEM Prediction Prediction (PVD) (PVD) FEM FEM Prediction (W/O PVD) FEM Prediction Prediction (W/O (W/O PVD) PVD) FEM

-0.4

-1 -0.6 -1.2

45 Days 105 Days

413 Days

-0.6 -0.8 -1.4

Distance from centerline (m) Distance Distancefrom fromcenterline centerline(m) (m)

27

Factor of Safety
2.2 2.1 2

Height of Fill = 2.57 m

With PVD Installation Without PVD Installation

Factor of Safety

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

Height of Fill = 4.74 m

1.5

1.4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time Elapsed (days)

28

Case 2 2nd Bangkok International Airport

Located at Nong Ngu Hao in the Central Plain of Thailand Project area 8 km by 4 km situated 25 km east of Bangkok Metropolis Soft clay strata with low strength and high compressibility

29

Weathered Clay Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Medium Clay Stiff Clay

Dense Sand
30

TEST EMBANKMENT TS3

31

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

32

Conditions for analysis Vertical closed consolidation boundary conditions were set at centre of embankment and 60.0 m from centre of embankment Open consolidation boundary conditions were set at ground surface and sand layer at 22 m below stiff clay layer
33

Conditions for analysis Soft soil model is used for clay layers Mohr-Coulomb model is used for embankment PVD installation effects not modeled, PVD wished-in-place, followed by stage construction of embankment
34

Method 1 Using interface element Equivalent horizontal permeability of soils, khpl, calculated Different kh/ks ratio determined by the permeabilities of different soil layers to match instrumentation data Method 2 Using an equivalent vertical permeability Treated as one-way drainage Drainage length taken to be the length of the vertical drain

35

FINITE ELEMENT MESH (METHOD 1) Analysis Number of elements used for method 1 was 1268 and 1117 for method 2 Each element has 6 nodes and 3 stress points Line refinement used at improved zone by vertical drains to increase the accuracy of solution
36

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains Consider Smear Effects Only
0 -0.2 -0.4 Settlement (m) -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 Time (day)
37

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Method 1

FEM (0-8m) FEM (0-12m) FEM (0-16m) Measured (0-8m) Measured (0-12m) Measured (0-16m)

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0 -0.2 -0.4 Settlement (m) -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 Time (day)
38

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Method 1

FEM (0-8m) FEM (0-12m) FEM (0-16m) Measured (0-8m) Measured (0-12m) Measured (0-16m)

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability Consider Smear Effects Only
0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Settlement (m) -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 Time (day)
39

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Method 2

FEM (0-8m) FEM (0-12m) FEM (0-16m) Measured (0-8m) Measured (0-12m) Measured (0-16m)

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Settlement (m) -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 Time (day)
40

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Method 2

FEM (0-8m) FEM (0-12m) FEM (0-16m) Measured (0-8m) Measured (0-12m) Measured (0-16m)

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects Only
0 0 -0.4 Settlement (m) 100 200 300 400 500

-0.8

-1.2

-1.6

0-8 m (Method 1) 0-12 m (Method 1) 0-16 m (Method 1) 0-8 m (Method 2) 0-12 m (Method 2) 0-16 m (Method 2)

-2 Time (day)

41

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0 0 -0.4 Settlement (m) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-0.8

-1.2

0-8 m (Method 1) 0-12 m (Method 1) 0-16 m (Method 1)

-1.6

0-8 m (Method 2) 0-12 m (Method 2) 0-16 m (Method 2)

-2 Time (day)

42

From the comparisons of settlements predictions:

Difference in the 2 methods is large when consider smear effects only, but for realistic conditions of drain smearing and well resistance , difference is smaller Difference between the two methods gets larger with increasing depths of settlement measurements

43

EXCESS PORE PRESSURE

40 Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m )
2

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200

Method 1 (center of embankment, 8 m) Method 2 (center of embankment, 8 m)

300 Time (day)

400

500

44

 Coupled consolidation in FEM can predict the excess pore pressure and settlement variation reasonably well PVD stabilized foundation soil showed efficient drainage allowing for faster embankment construction Loading rate of embankment on PVD stabilized foundation can be much faster but is dependent on efficacy of PVD to accelerate consolidation

Conclusion

45

Case Study: Back Analysis of Reinforced Soil Knolls at Pulau Tekong

46

Objectives of Back Analysis

Calibrate the soil and drain properties by matching FEM results with field measurements Illustrate the need for finite strain analysis in cases where there is relatively large displacement as compared to thickness of fill Identify the collapse mechanism involved Study the performance of the reinforcements and PVD proposed in the original knoll design Proposed possible changes to original design which may prevent future failure
47

Introduction
Geosynthetic Reinforcements Reinforced Knoll
Sand Blanket

Zone C 35 m

Zone B 25 m

Zone A 50 m

Zone B 25 m

Zone C 35 m

Elevation view of a Typical Knoll

48

Failure of Knoll D8

49

Site Condition of Knoll D8

Soil profile varied significantly Obtained from CPTs results and Soil Classification Chart
D8AL -145 0 -116 -87 -58 -29 5 10 15 Distance From Centerline (m) D8AC 0 SAND 29 58 D8AR 87 116 145

SOFT CLAY

Depth (m)

20 STIFF CLAY 25

After Robertson and Campanella (1983)

50

Properties of Geosynthetic Reinforcements

Type of Reinforcement Tensile Strength (kN/m) Elongation at Failure (%)

Rock G55/30 (Basal Reinforcement) PEC 50 (Side Slope Reinforcement) TS 80 (Side Slope Reinforcement)

50

10

50

10

30

10

51

Properties of PVD
Drainage Length (m) Drain Spacing (m) Equivalent Diameter (m) Influence Zone Diameter (m) 1.413 1.695 1.695 Smeared Zone Diameter (m)

Zone

A B C

15.0 10.0 5.0

1.25 1.50 1.50

0.0659 0.0659 0.0659

0.25 0.25 0.25

Equivalent Vertical Permeability was used to model PVD stabilized foundation soil

52

Loading Characteristics of Knoll D8

14.0

Coupled Consolidation and Updated Mesh with Pore Pressure Analysis was performed

10.5 Height of Knoll (m)

7.0

3.5

0.0 0 100 200 300 Time (Days) 400 500 600

53

FEM Model of Knoll D8

Counter Balance

GWT at 1m below ground surface

Fill (40 Layers)
10 m 10 m

Sand Blanket

Sand Soft Clay (OCR = 1.2) Stiff Clay

5m

60 m

35 m

25 m

50 m

25 m

35 m

60 m

54

Soil Properties Used In FEM Analysis

Reference from Tay (2002)
Material Material Backfill Sand Blanket Soft Clay Sand Stiff Clay sat unsat c (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa) sat unsat c 3) 3) 22 22 (kN/m (kN/m (kPa) 3 (o) 22 16 19 20 22 17 18 6 1 15 (o ) * 30 E (kPa) * 7000 kh kv (m/day) (m/day) kh kv 8.64E-2 (m/day) 8.64E-2 (m/day) ur 0.3

16

16

30 7000 8.64E-1 8.64E-1 0.3 0.187 0.019 3.46E-4 8.64E-5 0.15 30 30 10000 10000 8.64E-3 8.64E-3 1.73E-3 8.64E-4 0.3 0.3

Soft Soil Model Mohr Coulomb Model

55

Instrumentation Plan of Knoll D8

56

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

100.00 35 Field Measurement Field Measurement FEM Prediction FEM Prediction

Piezometer PP3 PP1

30 80.00 Excess Pore Pressure (kPa) 25 60.00 20

15 40.00 10 20.00 5

0 0.00 0.00

50.00 50

100.00 100

150.00 150 200 Time (Days) Time (Days)

200.00

250

250.00 300

300.00 350

57

Surface Settlement Profiles

0.300 1.200 0.250 Field Measurement 1.000 Field Measurement 0.200 FEM Prediction 0.800 Settlement (m) FEM Prediction Settlement (m) 0.150 0.600

0.100

0.400

0.050

SP1
190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540

0.200

SP3
250 300 350 400 450 500 550

0.000 140 -0.050

0.000 200 -0.200

Time (Days)

Time (Days)

0.000 140

190

240

290

340

390

440

490

540

0.000 140

190

240

290

340

390

440

490

540

-0.500

-0.500

SP5
Settlement (m) -1.000
Settlement (m) -1.000 -1.500

SP7

-1.500
Field Measurement

Field Measurement -2.000 FEM Prediction

-2.000 FEM Prediction

-2.500

-2.500 Time (Days)

Time (Days)

58

FEM Predicted Failure Mode of Knoll D8

Soft Clay

59

Parametric Study
Side slope reinforcements were ignored Half geometry was modeled Influence of the strength and stiffness of basal reinforcement on the allowable rate of loading Comparison between the allowable rate of loading for partial penetration of PVD and full penetration of PVD through the soft clay layer Soil properties were based on Knoll D8 Coupled consolidation and Updated mesh with pore pressure anaylsis was performed
60

FEM Model Used For Parametric Study

Knoll Fill (0.5m per layer)

Partial Penetration of PVD

10 15 m

25 m

25 m

35 m

60 m
61

FEM Model Used For Parametric Study

Knoll Fill (0.5m per layer)

Full Penetration of PVD

10 15 m

25 m

25 m
62

Validation of Assumptions
0.9 0.8 0.7 Average Loading Rate (m/wk) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 4 6 8 10 12 Height of Knoll (m) 14 16 18 20

Partial penetration of PVD and 50 kN/m Basal geogrid

(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m Knoll 7 (Depth of Clay = 15m): Point of Failure Knoll 8 (Depth of Clay = 17m): Point of Failure Knoll 10 (Depth of Clay = 11m): Point of Failure Knoll 12 (Depth of Clay = 10m): Point of Completion

63

Allowable Average Loading Rate (m/wk) v.s Height of Knoll (m)

2 1.8 1.6 Average Loading Rate (m/wk) 1.4 1.2 1

2 2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2

4

200 100 150 kN/m Basal Geogrid 50 kN/m Basal Geogrid

(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m (4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (6) Full Penentration: Depth of Clay = 10m

(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay =20m 20m (1) Partial Penetration: Depth Clay (1) Patial Penetration: Depth ofof Clay == 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay 15m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay == 15m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3)Partial PartialPenetration: Penetration:Depth Depthof ofClay Clay==10m 10m (3) (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m (4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (4)Full FullPenetration: Penetration:Depth Depthof ofClay Clay= =20m 20m (4) (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (5)Full FullPenetration: Penetration:Depth Depthof ofClay Clay= =15m 15m (5) (6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m (6)Full FullPenetration: Penetration:Depth Depthof ofClay Clay= =10m 10m (6)

Average Average AverageLoading Loading LoadingRate Rate Rate(m/wk) (m/wk) (m/wk)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0

10

12 Height of Knoll (m)

14

16

18

20

4 6 6

6 8 8

10 10

10

12 12 14 12 14 Knoll (m) Height of Height of Knoll (m)

14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20

64

Allowable Average Loading Rate (m/wk) v.s Height of Knoll (m)

50 kN/m Basal Geogrid
2 1.8 1.6 Average Loading Rate (m/wk) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 4 6 8 10 12 Height of Knoll (m) 14 16 18 20 (1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m Average Loading Rate (m/wk) (4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (6) Full Penentration: Depth of Clay = 10m 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 4 6 8 10 12 Height of Knoll (m) 14 16 18 20 2 1.8 (1) Patial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m (4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m

100 kN/m Basal Geogrid

2 1.8 1.6 Average Loading Rate (m/wk) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 6

150 kN/m Basal Geogrid

(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m (4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m Average Loading Rate (m/wk) (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

200 kN/m Basal Geogrid

(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m

(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m (2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m (3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

Height of Knoll (m)

Height of Knoll (m)

65

Velocity Field at Failure

Depth of Soft Clay = 10 m

Depth of Soft Clay = 20 m

66

Tensile Force Distribution of Basal Reinforcement at Failure

49 kN/m

50 kN/m

Depth of Soft Clay = 10 m

Depth of Soft Clay = 20 m

67

Influence of Basal Reinforcement

Strength of Geogrid (kN/m) Depth of Soft Clay (m) 10 50 100 150 200

5.7m

7.2m

10.7m

17m

15 20

5.7m 5.8m

6.9m 6.7m

7.7m 7.2m

8.5m 7.3m

68

Conclusion
Coupled consolidation and Updated mesh with pore pressure analysis is efficient in predicting the behaviour of large embankment Fully penetrated PVD can significantly increase the stability of an embankment as compared to partially penetrated PVD Weak and low stiffness basal reinforcement has minimal effect on the stability of an embankment

69

Overall Conclusion
PVD and basal reinforcement can significantly increase the stability of an embankment if they are properly designed When the displacement of the embankment is relatively large as compared to the height of fill, finite strain analysis is necessary in order to obtain reasonable results

70