Modelling Geosynthetic Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil

165 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1997, VOL. 4, NO.
2
Technical Paper by J.H. Yin
MODELLING GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED
GRANULAR FILLS OVER SOFT SOIL
ABSTRACT: In this paper, a new one-dimensional mathematical model is proposed
for modelling geosynthetic-reinforced granular fills over soft soils subject to a vertical
surcharge load. The geosynthetic reinforcement consists of a membrane (geogrid, or
geotextile) placed horizontally in engineered granular fill, which is constructed over
soft soil. The proposed model is mainly based on the assumption of a Pasternak shear
layer. Anewapproach that consists of incorporating a deformation compatibility condi-
tion into the model is introduced. The compatibility condition eliminates the need for
two uncertain model parameters that are required to calculate the shear stresses between
the top and bottom granular fill layers and the geosynthetic layer. This compatibility
condition also makes it possible to include the geosynthetic stiffness in the model. The
results from the proposed model are compared to results from a two-dimensional finite
element model and three other one-dimensional models reported in the literature. The
comparison reveals that the proposed model gives similar results with respect to the
settlement of a geosynthetic-reinforced granular base on soft soft and the mobilised ten-
sion in the geosynthetic layer.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetic reinforcement, Soil improvement, Foundation model,
Settlement, Tension force, Finite element modelling.
AUTHOR: J.H. Yin, Assistant Professor, The Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong
Kong, Telephone: 852/2766-6065, Telefax: 852/2334-6389, E-mail:
cejhyin@polyu.edu.hk.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1088,
USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics
International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 16 December 1996, revised version received
14 March 1997 and accepted 11 April 1997. Discussion open until 1 January 1998.
REFERENCE: Yin, J.H., 1997, Modelling Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fills
Over Soft Soil, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 165-185.
YIN D Modelling Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil
166 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1997, VOL. 4, NO. 2
1 INTRODUCTION
Afoundation constructed on soft soils may experience excessive settlement and pos-
sible bearing capacity failure under a surcharge load. One technique that is used to im-
prove the strength of soft foundation soils is the placement of engineered granular fills
containing geosynthetic reinforcement (e.g. geogrid, or geotextile) on the soft soil. The
calculation of settlement and the ultimate bearing capacity of the geosynthetic-rein-
forced granular fill over soft soil is an important issue facing design engineers. This pap-
er is focussed on the modelling of the load-settlement behaviour of geosynthetic-rein-
forced granular fill over soft soil. Various works have been carried out by many
researchers in this area of study (Bourdeau et al. 1982; Love et al. 1987; Madhav and
Poorooshasb 1988; Bourdeau 1989; Poorooshasb 1989; Poran et al. 1989; Ghosh 1991;
Poorooshasb 1991; Espinoza 1994; Ghosh and Madhav 1994; Khing et al. 1994; Shukla
and Chandra 1994; Shukla and Chandra 1995). In these modelling approaches, a two-
dimensional (2-D) plane strain problem (e.g. a strip footing) is simplified to a one-di-
mensional (1-D) problem. In the 1-D model, the soft soil is represented by Winkler
springs, the behaviour of which may be linear or nonlinear. The top and the bottomgran-
ular fill layers are assumed to behave as Pasternak shear layers (Pasternak 1954). The
geosynthetic layer (membrane) buried in the granular fill can withstand tension
forces only, and the geosynthetic layer behaviour is assumed to be elastic. This 1-D
model has an inherent problem, as does the Winkler foundation model, because no in-
teraction between the springs is considered. However, as pointed out by Shukla and
Chandra (1995), the interaction of the springs is not very significant for highly com-
pressible soft soils.
In most existing models, the longitudinal stiffness of the geosynthetic layer is as-
sumed to be rigid in tension, but does not carry vertical shear forces (Ghosh and Madhav
1994; Shukla and Chandra 1994; Shukla and Chandra 1995). The shear stresses acting
on the top and bottom surfaces of the geosynthetic layer are assumed to be related to
the vertical stresses acting on the top and bottom surfaces by a constant that is defined
by in the following expression: = , where = shear stress and = vertical stress
(Ghosh and Madhav 1994; Shukla and Chandra 1994; Shukla and Chandra 1995). The
magnitude of the constant is not exactly known which may cause difficulties when
using most existing models.
In this paper, a deformation compatibility condition is proposed. The use of this com-
patibility condition eliminates the two uncertain constants defined by for the top and
bottom shear stresses acting on the geosynthetic layer. The tension stiffness modulus
of the geosynthetic layer is incorporated into the proposed new model. In the first step
of model development, the behaviour of the granular fill is assumed to be elastic (Shuk-
la and Chandra 1995). The nonlinear and elastic-plastic behaviour of the granular fill
can be considered using the method proposed in this paper. In order to validate the pro-
posed model against other models, the results from the proposed model are compared
to two-dimensional FE modelling results and the results from other one-dimensional
models.
2 FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL
Figure 1 shows a simplified foundation model for a geosynthetic (e.g. geogrid, or geo-
textile) reinforced granular fill over soft soil. This simplified model is similar to the
model proposed by Shukla and Chandra (1995). According to the assumption of a Pas-
ternak shear layer, vertical planes in the granular fill layer move relative to each other
only in the vertical direction without rotation. The interface between the geosynthetic
layer (membrane) and the two granular fill layers is assumed to be fixed (i.e. there
is rough contact and no slippage). In this study, the behaviour of the granular fill and
the geosynthetic layer is assumed to be elastic.
The proposed model can be a simplification of a strip footing (or other similar struc-
tures) on a geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill over soft soil. The strip footing load is
simplified as a vertical pressure loading boundary of width 2B (Figure 1). Considering
a unit length in the direction perpendicular to Figure 1, the vertical force equilibrium
for Element 1 in Figure 2 (top granular fill layer) leads to the following expression:
(1) qdx
n
dl cos +
n
dl sin +
d
dx
dxH
t
= 0
where: q = footing pressure on the top granular fill layer; dx = projected element length
in the x direction;
n
= average normal stress acting on the bottom of the element;
n
=
average shear stress acting on the bottom of the element; dl = length of the bottom of
the element as shown in Figures 2 and 4; = angle between the horizontal and the bot-
tom of the element; H
t
= thickness of the top granular fill layer; and = average shear
stress acting on the side of the element.
According to the assumption of a Pasternak shear layer, the average vertical shear
stress is = G
t
dw/dx, and d/dx = G
t
d
2
w/dx
2
, where G
t
is the average shear modu-
lus of the top granular fill layer, and w is the vertical displacement. Thus, Equation
1 can be written as follows:
2B
q
Pasternak shear layers
Soft soil
Bedrock
k
s
H
b
G
b
for bottom granular fill layer
G
t
for top granular fill layer H
t
T, T
p T, T
p
E
g
for geosynthetic layer
membrane
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed one-dimensional foundation model, and the
definition of model parameters.
dx
w
q
x
y
dl
n

n
+ (/x)dx
i + (i/x)dx
n

n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
q
s
= k
s
w
T
p
, T + dT
T
p
, T
+ d
Element 1
Figure 2. Three elements froma vertical segment of a geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill
of infinitesimal width showing the forces and stresses on each element: (a) top granular fill
layer; (b) geosynthetic layer; (c) bottom granular fill layer.
Element 2
Element 3
(a)
(b)
(c)
w + dw
(2)
q =
n

n
tan H
t
G
t
d
2
w
dx
2
where q = 0 outside of the loaded area.
The vertical force equilibrium equation for Element 3 (bottom granular fill layer) in
Figure 2c is expressed as follows:
(3) q
s
dx +
n
dl cos
n
dl sin +
d
dx
dx H
b
= 0
where: q
s
= vertical reaction pressure of soft soil (simplified as Winkler springs);
n
=
average normal stress acting on the top of the element;
n
= average shear stress acting
on the top of the element; H
b
= thickness of the bottom granular fill layer; and = aver-
age shear stress acting on the side of the bottom element. Substituting = G
b
dw/dx,
and d/dx = G
b
d
2
w/dx
2
, Equation 3 becomes:
(4)
q
s
=
n
tan H
b
G
b
d
2
w
dx
2
where G
b
is the average shear modulus of the bottom granular fill layer.
The vertical force equilibrium equation for Element 2 in Figure 2b (geosynthetic lay-
er) leads to the following expression:
(5)
dT
dx
sin = (T + T
p
) cos
d
dx
(
n

n
) + (
n
+
n
) tan
where: T = mobilised tension in the geosynthetic layer; and T
p
= pretension force of the
geosynthetic layer.
The horizontal force equilibrium equation for Element 2 (geosynthetic layer) is ex-
pressed as follows:
(6)
dT
dx
cos = (T + T
p
) sin
d
dx
+ (
n

n
) tan + (
n
+
n
)
Figure 3 shows the deformation of the top and bottom granular fill elements due to
an increase in tension, dT. Assuming no sliding between the geosynthetic layer and the
top and bottom granular fill layers, the following deformation compatibility condition
(or relationships) exists:
(7) u
x
= u
x
= u
g,x
where u
x
, u
x
and u
g, x
are the horizontal displacements at the top and bottom granular
fill layers, and the interface of the geosynthetic layer, respectively.
The values of u
x
and u
x
are related to the shear strain values,
x
and
x
, respectively,
which are then related to the shear stresses,
n
and
n
, as expressed in the following:
(8) u
x
= H
t

x
= H
t
n
G
t
(9) u
x
= H
b

x
= H
b
n
G
b
Using Equations 7 to 9, the shear stress,
n
, can be expressed in terms of
n
as follows:
(10)
n
=
G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
n
Figure 4 shows a stretched and rotated element of the geosynthetic layer. Using Equa-
tions 7 to 9, the displacement of the geosynthetic element and the displacement incre-
ment can be written as follows:
dx
u
x
x
y
n

n
n
i
n i
n
i
n
T
p
, T + dT
T
p
, T
ui
x
i
x
x
G
t
H
t
H
b
G
b
Figure 3. Shear deformation due to an increase in geosynthetic layer mobilised tension:
(a) top granular fill layer; (b) geosynthetic layer; (c) bottom granular fill layer.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Element 1
Element 2
Element 3
n
i
n
dx
u
g, x
Figure 4. Stretching and rotation of a geosynthetic element.
dw
dl
u
g, x
+ du
g, x

(11)
(12)
u
g,x
= u
x
=
H
b
G
b
n
du
g,x
= du
x
=
H
b
G
b
d
n
The stretched length, dl, after rotation of the geosynthetic element is given by the fol-
lowing expression:
(13) dl = (dw)
2
+ (dx + du
g,x
)
2
The strain,
g
, of the geosynthetic element is calculated as follows:
(14)
g
=
dl dx
dx
=
dw
dx
2
+1 +
du
g,x
dx
1
Using Equations 11, 12 and 14, the mobilised tension, T, in the geosynthetic element
is given by the following expression:
(15) T = E
g
g
= E
g

dw
dx
2
+1 +
H
b
d
n
G
b
dx
where E
g
is the tension modulus (kN/m) of the geosynthetic layer.
Substituting Equation 10 into Equation 2, the following expression is obtained for
calculating the pressure on top of the granular fill:
(16) q =
n

G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
n
tan H
t
G
t
d
2
w
dx
2
Since d/dx = (cos
2
) d
2
w/dx
2
, Equations 5 and 6 can be written as follows:
(17)
dT
dx
sin = (T + T
p
) cos
3
d
2
w
dx
2
(
n

n
) + (
n
+
n
) tan
dT
dx
cos = (T + T
p
) sin cos
2
d
2
w
dx
2
+ (
n

n
) tan + (
n
+
n
) (18)
Since the rotation angle, , is related to dw/dx by tan = dw/dx, Equations 15 to 18
and Equation 4 can be used to solve for the five unknowns, i.e.
n
,
n
,
n
, w and T.
Equations 17 and 18 can be simplified by multiplying Equation 17 by cos and Equa-
tion 18 by sin , and subtracting the former from the latter to give the following expres-
sions:
(19) (
n

n
) = (T + T
p
) cos
3
d
2
w
dx
2
(
n
+
n
) =
dT
dx
cos (20)
Substracting Equation 4 from Equation 16 gives the following:
q q
s
= (
n

n
) (
n
+
n
) tan (H
t
G
t
+ H
b
G
b
)
d
2
w
dx
2
(21)
Substituting Equations 19 and 20 into Equation 21 results in the following expression:
q q
s
= (T + T
p
) cos
3
d
2
w
dx
2
sin
dT
dx
(H
t
G
t
+ H
b
G
b
)
d
2
w
dx
2
(22)
where q
s
= k
s
w, and k
s
is a spring constant. The unknowns in Equation 22 are T and w.
Substituting Equation 10 into Equation 20, the following expression is obtained:
dT
dx
=
1
cos
(
n
+
n
) =
1
cos
G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
+ 1
n
(23)
Differentiating Equation 23:
d
2
T
dx
2
= sin
G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
+ 1
n
d
2
w
dx
2
+
1
cos
G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
+ 1
d
n
dx
(24)
Rearranging Equation 23:
n
=
cos
G
t
H
b
G
b
H
t
+ 1
dT
dx (25)
T
E
g
2
+ 1 =
dw
dx
2
+1 +
H
b
d
n
G
b
dx
2
(26)
d
n
dx
=
G
b
H
b

T
E
g
2
+ 1
dw
dx
(27)
Substituting Equations 25 and 27 into Equation 24 gives the following expression:
d
2
T
dx
2
= sin cos
d
2
w
dx
2
dT
dx
+
1
cos
G
t
H
t
+
G
b
H
b

T
E
g
2
+ 1
dw
dx
(28)
Equation 22 and Equation 28 are the two basic equations for solving the two un-
knowns T and w.
3 NORMALISED EQUATIONS AND A NUMERICAL SOLUTION
3.1 Introduction
The following normalised parameters were used in the numerical solution (Shukla
and Chandra 1995):
X =
x
B
W =
w
B
H
*
t
=
H
t
B
H
*
b
=
H
b
B
G
*
t
=
G
t
H
t
B
2
k
s
G
*
b
=
G
b
H
b
B
2
k
s
E
*
g
=
E
g
B
2
k
s
q
*
=
q
B
2
k
s
T
*
p
=
T
p
B
2
k
s
T
*
=
T
B
2
k
s
, , ,
, ,
, ,
where B is half the width of the surcharge load. All of the normalised parameters are
dimensionless.
Using the normalisations given above, Equations 22 and 28 can be expressed as:
q
*
= W sin
dT
*
dX
[(T
*
+ T
*
p
) cos
3
+ (G
*
t
+ G
*
b
)]
d
2
W
dX
2
(29)
(30)
d
2
T
*
dX
2
= sin cos
d
2
W
dX
2
dT
*
dX
+
1
cos
G
*
t
H
*2
t
+
G
*
b
H
*2
b

T
*
E
*
g
2
+1
dW
dX
2
1
where:
tan =
dW
dX
sin =
dW
dX
1 +
dW
dX
cos =
1
1 +
dW
dX
, ,
Using the following finite difference scheme:
W
X
=
W
i
W
i1
X
2
W
X
2
=
W
i1
2W
i
+ W
i+1
(X)
2
T
*
X
=
T
*
i
T
*
i1
X
2
T
*
X
2
=
T
*
i1
2T
*
i
+ T
*
i+1
(X)
2
Equations 29 and 30 become:
q
*
i
= W
i
sin
dT
*
dX
i
[(T
*
+ T
*
p
) cos
3
+ (G
*
t
+ G
*
b
)]
i
W
i1
2W
i
+ W
i+1
(X)
2
(31)
(32)
T
*
i1
2T
*
i
+T
*
i+1
(X)
2
= (sin cos )
i
W
i1
2W
i
+W
i+1
(X)
2

T
*
i+1
T
*
i1
2X

+
1
(cos )
i
G
*
t
H
*2
t
+
G
*
b
H
*2
b

T
*
i
E
*
g
2
+1
dW
dX
2
i
1
The length L/B may be divided into n elements of the same increment length with (n
+ 1) node points (i = 0, 1, ..., n); thus, X = (L/B)/n.
3.2 Boundary Conditions
A total of four boundary conditions are required for the two second order partial dif-
ferential equations (Equations 31 and 32). Refer to Figure 5 for a symmetric geosynthet-
ic-reinforced system with a constant pressure loading q of width 2B and a length of 2L.
At X = 0 (or x = 0), due to symmetry, the slope, dW/dX, will be zero and the ratio of
the increase in tension, dT
*
/dX, will be zero as given in the following expressions:
dW
dX
= 0
dT
*
dX
= 0
At X = L/B (or x = L), the right end of the geosynthetic layer is free, so that the mobi-
lised tension, T = 0. The shear stress acting on the geosynthetic layer at the right end
(at X = L/B) will also equal zero since there is no confinement, that is, = = 0. Since
Figure 5. The one-dimensional model of a geosynthetic-reinforced granular foundation
under a constant surcharge load.
B B
L L
y
x
the Pasternak shear layer assumes that = G
t
dw/dx, and =G
b
dw/dx, then dw/dx = 0.
Thus, the boundary conditions at X = L/B are expressed as follows:
dW
dX
= 0
T
*
= 0
Using the four boundary conditions given above, Equations 31 and 32 can be solved
to obtain a unique solution for a given load. Since Equations 31 and 32 are both nonlin-
ear equations, an iterative computing procedure must be used to obtain a solution. In
the first iteration, an initial value of zero may be assumed for T
i
and W
i
(i = 0, 1, ..., n).
The iteration is stopped for a relative error of [W
i
(k+1)
-- W
i
(k)
]/W
i
(k)
< 10
-4
and [T
i
(k+1)
-- T
i
(k)
]/T
i
(k)
< 10
-4
(i = 0, 1, ..., n), where k is an iteration index. A computer program
was written to solve Equations 31 and 32 using an iteration technique.
4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
Finite element techniques may be used to study the effects of geosynthetic reinforce-
ment in granular fills (Rowe and Soderman 1987). In order to compare the results of
the proposed 1-Dmodel against 2-Dfinite element solutions, a finite element (FE) mod-
el was constructed as shown in Figure 6. In the FE model, a geosynthetic-reinforced
granular fill was simulated as a 2-Dplane strain problem based on continuum mechan-
ics. This 2-D plane strain simulation is more accurate than the simplified 1-D model.
The weakness of the 2-Dmodel is that a significant amount of time was required to pre-
pare the model, and to execute the numerical solution. As in the 1-Dmodel, the soft soil
was simulated as a spring support so as to validate the 1-D modelling assumptions. A
commercial FE program called SIGMA/W (1995) was used for the FE modelling. The
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
---0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
---0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
B = 2 m
B = 2 m
Y
(
m
)
Y
(
m
)
L = 4 m
L = 4 m
X (m)
X (m)
H
t
H
b
H
g
H
t
H
b
H
g
Figure 6. Finite element (FE) model for a surcharge load, q = 52.6 kN/m
2
: (a) FE model
mesh and boundary conditions; (b) deformed FE model mesh.
Notes: H
t
= H
b
= 0.3 m; H
g
= 0.04 m.
description of the FE program can be found in the SIGMA/W (1995) manual together
with validation models.
The height and length of each element in the FE model as shown Figure 6 are 0.02
m and 0.04 m, respectively. A total of 3000 elements was used. The geosynthetic layer
was placed in the middle of the granular fill. The geosynthetic layer was simulated as
a thin layer of thickness H
g
= 0.04 m using an equivalent Youngs modulus E = E
g
/0.04.
The following is a summary of the parameters used in the FE model (B is the length
of the elements supported by springs, and K
s
is the spring constant acting at each node):
S Dimensions: B = 2 m, L = 4 m, H
t
= H
b
= 0.3 m, H
*
t
= H
*
b
= 0.3/2 = 0.15.
S Granular fill properties: k
s
= 263 kN/m
3
, G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, G
t
= (G
*
t
k
s
B
2
)/H
t
= G
b
= 0.1
263 4/0.3 = 350.7 kN/m
2
, = 0.49, E
t
= E
b
= 2G
t
(1+) = 2 350.7(1 + 0.49) =
1045 kN/m
2
(where = Poissons ratio of the granular fill; and E
t
and E
b
= Youngs
modulus of the top and bottom granular fill layers, respectively).
S Geosynthetic layer: E
*
g
= E
g
/(k
s
B
2
) = 20, E
g
= 20 k
s
B
2
= 20 263 4 = 21040 kN/m,
g
= 0.49, E = E
g
/H
g
= E
g
/0.04 = 5.26 10
5
kN/m
2
(where
g
= Poissons ratio of geo-
synthetic layer; and E = Youngs modulus of the geosynthetic layer).
S Load: q
*
= q/(k
s
B) = 0.1, q = 0.1 263 2 = 52.6 kN/m
2
, T
p
= 0.
S Springs: B = 0.04 m, K
S
= (B)k
s
= 0.04 263 = 10.52 kN/m
2.
The principle for selecting the above FE model parameters was to make the normal-
ised FE model parameters defined in Section 3 have the same values as the parameters
in the proposed 1-Dmodel discussed in preceding sections. The actual parameter values
used for the FE modelling are the values typically used in practice.
Two different vertical pressures were used for the FE modelling, that is, q = 52.6 kN/
m
2
(q
*
= 0.1) and q = 157.8 kN/m
2
(q
*
= 0.3). Figure 6 shows the deformed FE model
mesh for q = 52.6 kN/m
2
. The vertical settlement and mobilised tension values obtained
using the FE model are compared to the results obtained using the proposed model and
the model from Shukla and Chandra (1995) (S&C) in Figure 7. It is seen that both the
proposed model and Shukla and Chandras model slightly underestimate the settlement
of the foundation, but the settlement values obtained using the proposed model are clos-
er to the FE modelling results. Shukla and Chandras model overestimates the mobi-
lised tension in the region X 0.90, and overestimates the mobilised tension by 200%
at X = 0. Beyond this region, the results from Shukla and Chandras model are close
to the FE modelling results. Also, the mobilised tension within the footing width, B, (or
from L/B = 0 to 0.90) increases almost linearly (toward X = 0), which differs from the
result obtained using the FE model. The proposed model underestimates the mobilised
tension by 0 to 15% for q
*
= 0.1, but overestimates the mobilised tension by 20 to 50%
for q
*
=0.3 when 0 < X < 0.85. The proposed model generally overestimates the mobi-
lised tension for X > 0.85. For the proposed model, the rate of increase of the mobilised
tension at X = 0 is zero. The FE model also results in a zero rate of increase of the mobi-
lised tension at X = 0. The FE program used (SIGMA/W 1995) is based on a theory of
small deformation that normally overestimates the settlement and underestimates the
mobilised tension for large deformation problems such as that presented in Figure 7.
5 MODELLING RESULTS, COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
Additional results from the proposed model are presented in Figures 8 to 11 and are
compared to model results from Shukla and Chandra (1995), Ghosh (1991), and Mad-
hav and Poorooshasb (1988) (M&P in Figures 8 and 9) .
Figure 8 shows the computed settlements for q
*
= 0.1, 0.3 and 0.8 using the four mo-
dels. It is seen that the proposed model generally produces slightly larger settlements
that are closer to the FE modelling results discussed in Section 4.
The effect of the stiffness shear modulus at the bottom and top of the granular fill lay-
ers, G
*
t
and G
*
b
, respectively, can be seen in Figure 9. An increase in the shear modulus
generally reduces foundation settlements. Comparing the results from the proposed
model to the results from the other three models, the proposed model generally gives
larger settlements.
Figure 10 presents the settlement and mobilised tension values computed using the
proposed model for different geosynthetic layer stiffnesses (E
*
g
= 2, 20 and 200). It is
seen that the settlement is slightly reduced within the loaded region and the mobilised
tension slightly increases, due to an increase in the geosynthetic layer stiffness.
Figure 11 presents the effect of the pretension force (T
*
p
= 0, 0.5 and 1) computed us-
ing the proposed model. The increase in the pretension force reduces both the settle-
ment within and slightly beyond the loaded region, and increases the mobilised tension.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
Figure 7. Comparison of the two-dimensional FEmodel with the one-dimensional models
proposed by Shukla and Chandra (1995) (S & C) and in the present study: (a) settlement;
(b) mobilised tension.
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, E
*
g
= 20, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= H
*
b
= 0.15, T
*
p
= 0
q
*
= 0.1
q
*
= 0.3
Present study
S & C (1995)
FE model
Present study
S & C (1995)
FE model
Distance from center of loading, X = x/B
Present study
S & C (1995)
FE model
Present study
S & C (1995)
FE model
(a)
(b)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
W
=
w
/
B
M
o
b
i
l
i
s
e
d
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
,
T
*
=
T
/
(
k
s
/
B
2
)
q
*
= 0.3
q
*
= 0.1
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, E
*
g
= 20, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= H
*
b
= 0.15, T
*
p
= 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 8. Comparison of the proposed one-dimensional model results with the Madhav
and Poorooshasb (1988) (M & P), Ghosh (1991), and Shukla and Chandra (1995) (S & C)
models - normalised settlement values for different normalised loads, q
*
.
q
*
= 0.1
q
*
= 0.3
Present study
M & P (1988)
Ghosh (1991)
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, E
*
g
= 20, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= H
*
b
= 0.15, T
*
p
= 0
S & C (1995)
Present study
M & P (1988)
Ghosh (1991)
S & C (1995)
Present study
M & P (1988)
Ghosh (1991)
S & C (1995)
q
*
= 0.8
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
W
=
w
/
B
6 CONCLUSIONS
A new one-dimensional model is proposed for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fills
over soft soils subject to a vertical surcharge load. A deformation compatibility condi-
tion is suggested and implemented in the proposed model. Two uncertain model param-
eters used to calculate the shear stresses between the top and bottom granular fill layers
and the geosynthetic layer are eliminated. The stiffness of the geosynthetic layer is con-
sidered in the model. The settlement and mobilised tension computed using the pro-
posed model are in a better agreement with the finite element model results than the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Present study
M & P (1988)
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.5 G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 1
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1
S & C (1995)
Ghosh (1991)
Present study
M & P (1988)
S & C (1995)
Ghosh (1991)
Present study
M & P (1988)
S & C (1995)
Ghosh (1991)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
W
=
w
/
B
Figure 9. Comparison of the proposed one-dimensional model results with the Madhav
and Poorooshasb (1988) (M & P), Ghosh (1991), and Shukla and Chandra (1995) (S & C)
models - normalised settlement values for different normalised shear stiffness values at the
top and bottom of the granular fill layer, G
*
t
and G
*
b
, respectively.
q
*
= 0.8, E
*
g
= 20, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= H
*
b
= 0.15, T
*
p
= 0
other one-dimensional models used in the comparison. Nonlinear and elastic-plastic be-
haviour of the granular fill can be considered when using the proposed model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University is acknowledged.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, q
*
= 0.8, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= 0.25, H
*
b
= 0.05, T
*
p
= 0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
W
=
w
/
B
M
o
b
i
l
i
s
e
d
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
,
T
*
=
T
/
(
k
s
/
B
2
)
E
*
g
= 2
E
*
g
= 20
E
*
g
= 200
E
*
g
= 2
E
*
g
= 20
E
*
g
= 200
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, q
*
= 0.8, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= 0.25, H
*
b
= 0.05, T
*
p
= 0
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. The geosynthetic layer stiffness, E
*
g
, results for the proposed
one-dimensional model of a geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill over soft soil:
(a) settlement: (b) mobilised tension.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 11. The pretension force analysis, T
*
p
, results, for the proposed one-dimensional
model of a geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill over soft soil: (a) settlement; (b) mobilised
tension.
M
o
b
i
l
i
s
e
d
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
,
T
*
=
T
/
(
k
s
/
B
2
)
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, q
*
= 0.8, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= 0.25, H
*
b
= 0.05, T
*
p
= 0
(a)
(b)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
W
=
w
/
B
T
*
p
= 0.5
T
*
p
= 1
T
*
p
= 0
T
*
p
= 0.5
T
*
p
= 1
T
*
p
= 0
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, q
*
= 0.8, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= 0.25, H
*
b
= 0.05, E
*
g
= 20
G
*
t
= G
*
b
= 0.1, q
*
= 0.8, L/B = 2
H
*
t
= 0.25, H
*
b
= 0.05, E
*
g
= 20
REFERENCES
Bourdeau, P.L., 1989, Modelling of Membrane Action in a Two-Layer Reinforced Soil
System, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2, pp. 19-36.
Bourdeau, P.L., Harr, M.E. and Holtz, R.D., 1982, Soil-Fabric Interaction - An Analyt-
ical Model, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles,
IFAI, Vol. 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, August 1982, pp. 387-391.
Espinoza, R.D., 1994, Soil-Geotextile Interaction: Evaluation of Membrane Support,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 281-293.
Geo-Slope International Ltd., 1995, SIGMA/W Manual, Version 3, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Ghosh, C., 1991, Modelling and Analysis of Reinforced Foundation Beds, Ph.D. the-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T., Kanpur, India, 218 p.
Ghosh, C. and Madhav, M.R., 1994, Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System: Con-
finement Effect, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 727-741.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Yen, S.C. and Cook, E.E., 1994, Foundation on
Strong Sand Underlain by Weak Clay with Geogrid at the Interface, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 199-206.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E. and Houlsby, G.T., 1987, Analytical and Mod-
el Studies of Reinforcement of a Layer of Granular Fill on a Soft Clay Subgrade,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 611-622.
Madhav, M.R. and Poorooshasb, H.B., 1988, A New Model for Geosynthetic Rein-
forced Soil, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 277-290.
Pasternak, P.L., 1954, On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by
Means of Two Foundation Constants, Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstro Liberaturi po
Stroitelsvui Arkhitekture, Moscow. (in Russian)
Poorooshasb, H.S., 1989, Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Using a Simple
Transform Function, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 289-309.
Poorooshasb, H.S., 1991, On Mechanics of Heavily Reinforced Granular Mats, Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 134-152.
Poran, C.J., Herrmann, L.R. and Romastad, K.M., 1989, Finite Element Analysis of
Footings on Geogrid-Reinforced Soil, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 89, IFAI, Vol.
1, San Diego, California, USA, February 1989, pp. 231-242.
Rowe, R.K. and Soderman, K.L., 1987, Stabilization of Very Soft Soils Using High-
Strength Geosynthetics: the Role of Finite Element Analyses, Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-3, pp. 53-80.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S., 1994, AStudy of Settlement Response of a Geosynthet-
ic-Reinforced Compressible Granular Fill-Soft Soil System, Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 627-639.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S., 1995, Modelling of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Engine-
ered Granular Fill on Soft Soil, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.
603-617.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
B = half width of uniform surcharge load (m)
dl = length of bottom of deformed element (m)
dx = projected element length in the x (horizontal) direction (m)
E = Youngs modulus of geosynthetic layer (N/m
2
)
E
b
= Youngs modulus of bottom granular fill layer (N/m
2
)
E
g
= tension modulus of geosynthetic layer (N/m)
E
t
= Youngs modulus of top granular fill layer (N/m
2
)
E
*
g
= normalised E
g
(dimensionless)
G
b
= shear modulus of bottom granular fill layer (N/m
2
)
G
t
= shear modulus of top granular fill layer (N/m
2
)
G
*
b
= normalised G
b
(dimensionless)
G
*
t
= normalised G
t
(dimensionless)
H
b
= thickness of bottom granular fill layer (m)
H
g
= thickness of geosynthetic layer (m)
H
t
= thickness of top granular fill layer (m)
H
*
b
= normalised H
b
(dimensionless)
H
*
t
= normalised H
t
(dimensionless)
i = subscript referring to a nodal point (dimensionless)
K
s
= spring constant acting at each node (dimensionless)
k = iteration index (dimensionless)
k
s
= modulus of subgrade reaction for soft foundation soil (N/m
3
)
L = half width of geosynthetic-reinforced zone (m)
n = number of geosynthetic elements (dimensionless)
q = pressure on the top granular fill layer (N/m
2
)
q
s
= vertical reaction pressure of soft soil (simplified Winkler springs)
(N/m
2
)
q
*
= normalised q (dimensionless)
T = mobilised tension in geosynthetic layer (N/m)
T
p
= pretension force of geosynthetic layer (N/m)
T
*
= normalised T (dimensionless)
T
*
p
= normalised T
p
(dimensionless)
u
x
= horizontal displacement at top of granular fill layer (m)
ui
g,x
= horizontal displacement at geosynthetic layer interface (m)
ui
x
= horizontal displacement at bottom of granular fill layer (m)
W = normalised w (dimensionless)
w = vertical displacement (m)
X = normalised x (dimensionless)
x = horizontal distance from centre (Figure 5) (m)
y = vertical distance from centre (Figure 5) (m)
g
= strain of geosynthetic element (dimensionless)
x
= shear strain in geosynthetic element due to horizontal
displacement u
x
at top granular fill layer (dimensionless)
i
x
= shear strain in geosynthetic element due to horizontal
displacement ui
x
at bottom granular fill layer (dimensionless)
= angle between horizontal and bottom of element (_)
= constant relating vertical stress to shear stress on top and bottom surfaces
of geosynthetic layer (dimensionless)
n
= average normal stress acting on bottom of element (N/m
2
)
i
n
= average normal stress acting on top of element (N/m
2
)
= average shear stress acting on the side of element in top granular fill layer
(N/m
2
)
n
= average shear stress acting on bottom of element (N/m
2
)
i = average shear stress acting on the side of element in bottom granular fill
layer (N/m
2
)
i
n
= average shear stress acting on top of element (N/m
2
)
= Poissons ratio of granular fill (dimensionless)
g
= Poissons ratio of geosynthetic layer (dimensionless)

Modelling Geosynthetic Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Modelling Geosynthetic Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

165 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1997, VOL. 4, NO.

YIN D Modelling Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil

Вам также может понравиться