Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

Compurers

and Geotechnics 17 (1995) 441411


0 1995 Elsevier
ScienceLimited

PrintedinGreatBritain.
Allrights
reserved
0266-352X195/$9.50
ELSEVIER

FE ANALYSIS

OF GRID REINFORCED
EMBANKMENT
ON SOFT BANGdOK CLAY

SYSTEM

D.T. Bergado
Associate
Professor of Geotechnical
Engineering
School of Civil Engineering,
Asian Institute
of Technology
P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok 10501 Thailand

Research
l-11-15

J.C. Chai
Kiso-Jiban
Consultants
Co. Ltd.
Engineer,
Kudan-Kita,
Chiyoda-Ku,
Tokyo 102, Japan

N. Miura
Director,
Institute of Lowland Technology
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Saga University,
Saga 840, Japan

ABSTRACT

The behavior
of a reinforced
embankment
on soft Bangkok
clay has been
The finite element analysis
analyzed
by plane strain finite element method.
considers
the selection
of proper soil/reinforcement
properties
according
to
the relative
displacement
pattern of upper and lower interface
elements.
The
large deformation
phenomenon
is simulated
by updating
the node coordinates,
including
those of the embankment
elements
above the current
construction
level, which ensures
that the applied
fill thickness
simulates
the actual
field
value.
A full scale test reinforced
embankment
with a vertical
face
(wall) on Bangkok
clay has been analyzed
by the proposed
finite
element
method,
and the numerical
results
are compared
with the field data.
The
response of a reinforced
embankment
on soft ground is principally
controlled
by the interaction
between
the reinforced
soil mass and soft ground and the
interaction
between the grid reinforcement
and the backfill
soil.
The tension
in reinforcement
and lateral
displacement
of the wall
face varied
during
consolidation
of foundation
soil.
The maximum tension
force occurred
in the
reinforcement
layer placed at the base of reinforced
mass, due to bending of
the reinforced
mass resulting
from differential
settlements.
It is considered
necessary
to account
for the permeability
variation
of the soft
ground
foundation
in the finite element analysis.

INTRODUCTION

To
it

is

analyze

the behavior

necessary

to

soil/r2inforcement
and

interaction,
To

simultaneously.

technique,

such

of reinforced

consider

as

solve

finite

earth

and soft.ground
this

element

structure

elasto-plastic
,

the

type
has

of

consolidation

complex

been

on soft

behavior

used

problem,
by

ground,

of

soil,

systematically
the

several

numerical

investigators

[1.2,3,41.

The
by

direct

different
properties,
mode

gives

To properly
analysis,
interaction

properties
shear

or

of

soil/reinforcement

pullout

soil/reinforcement
i.e.
higher

for

strip

interaction

strength

than

the soil/reinforcement

it is necessary

interface

However,

reinforcement,

interface

simulate

tests.

to use different

modes.
447

mode

for

are
grid

yields

usually,

interaction
interface

different

direct

the pullout

usually

determined

reinforcement,

shear

interaction

interaction
behavior

properties

the

interface

mode

[21.

in numerical
for different

448

In

finite

approximately

element

incremental

analysis.

reinforced

wall

consider
which

that

new

the

above

errors

lift

that

of

interaction

behavior

In

the

paper.

on

Finally,

of

and

lift

due to large

and

of

the

But

for

would

thickness.

deformation,

mass might

be different

to investigate

soft

foundation

applied

of

analysis

face

(wall).

the

as well

are

of soil/reinforcement

and the interaction

between

of

full

The
been
with

interaction

of

test
large

discussed
the

mode

mass

in finite
scale

effect

has

reinforced

different

problem

compared

analyses

results

the

deformation

to

the

element

considering

large

vertical

results

finite

the influence

of the system

concepts
modes

been

with

the

the

change

in coordinates

It is necessary
mass

on rigid

small.

applied

not

factors.

[61 have

subsequently,

the change

the

do

elements

wall

coordinate

and reinforced

the reinforced

element

deformation

ignoring

case.

151,

on soil

relatively

on soft ground

between

embankment

are

the

for analyzing

Herrmann

be placed

the

level

is

during

For reinforced

structure

interaction

reinforced

must

than the actually

foundation

used

by

greater

soil/reinforcement
modelling

programs

ignoring

the soft ground

influence

this

by

problem

coordinates

Program

displacements.

construction

earth

the rigid

as the related

REA

on soft ground,

between

node

of soil elements

introduced

thickness

For reinforced
the interaction

e.g.

deformation

large

qthe

most computer

certain

the current

embankment

lead to soil

from

layer

the

updating

embankment,

undergone

foundation,

reinforced

by

However,

or

each

already

elements

analysis,

considered

and

field

data.

on the response

and soft ground

are

investigated.

MODELLING

Two

SOIL/REINFORCEMENT

soil/reinforcement

reinforcement

from

For

shear).
mechanisms

soil

grid

for

interaction
and

two

interface

direct

[61.

shear

modes

to

represent

reinforcement
only

from

approximately

convert

the

modelled

pullout

shear

stiffness,

passive

equivalent

friction

tangential

of a skin

resistance
shear

and

The

for

pullout

k,,,

The

resistances
interface

of

k, is the sum of k,, and

and can
is to

to

total

tangential

The
k,,.

[71
grid

idea

component,k,,,

respectively.

and

model

situat,ion

resistance

the

pullout

pullout

analysis.

of

(direct

In modelling

used

mode.

friction

component,

stiffness

are

bearing
the

pullout

mobilization

resistance

a three-dimensional

Therefore,

k,, consists

bearing

expected:
reinforcement

stress/displacement

in a two-dimensional

skin

be

the

models

shear

BEHAVIOR

different.

interaction

represents

interface.

soil/reinforcement
a

the soil

shear

are

two

hyperbolic

direct

can

over

the' interface
modes

behavior,

The

modes

sliding

different

soil/reinforcement

is used

soil

reinforcement,

these

INTERFACE

and
total

449

Detailed

for k,, and k,, were

expressions

In

finite

interface
whether

element

analysis,

elements

above

and below

the direct

shear

mode

is the acting
treated

as

mode.

pair

maintained

The

throughout

elements

are

T, and

have

the

same

sign

mode

is used.

normal

stress

normal

and

the

the

shear

of

the

above

numbers

of

analysis.

direct

stiffness

mode

shear

interface

shear

mode

[61.

stress

in

shear

are

stresses

to allow

(e.g.

the opening

and

pair

rI and

T,

pullout

modes,

small

and

of

Otherwise,

interaction

are

noted

1 T, + ~~1, that means

a very

sign)

reinforcement

elements

is applicable.

the

to determine

(different

and below

and pullout

assigned

Bergado

are compared

the

is in tension,

are

the

pair

Suppose

shear

and

or the pullout

elements

1T,I + 1~~1 equals

direct

For both
at

signs

(same sign)

and

r2, if
and

the

by Chai

the reinforcement

interface

elements,

given

when
100

the

kN/m')

slippage

at

interface.

The concept
to the relative
applied

to analyze

element
yield

results

showed
the

vertical

that
same

reinforced

OTHER

of Node

The
settlement.

large
does

phenomenon

can

The approach
by Carter
on soft
is

et al

simulating

the

fill

thickness

above

current

analyzed

by

fill

During

against

problem

the

construction

is

same

the

construction
thickness

embankment,

as

significant

be more

modes

in this

study
and

later

influence

that
on

the

MODELLING

it

analysis,

than

effectiveness

the

the

nodal

on

analyzing

deformation
deformation
coordinates.

good

the embankment

results

large
in

and

for

deformation
this

the

that

coordinates

also be updated.

large

value

deformation

given

phenomenon

study.

ensuring

the prescribed
of

for

large

large

based

analysis

value,

should

cause

large deformation

the

procedure

if

the

updating

coordinates

field

suitable

elements,

by

will

is developed

is not

element
soil

top surface

will
the

and

to provide

the

interaction

detail

usually

Therefore,

actual

in

relationship

treated

node

was

Finite

reinforcements

Analysis

the rigorous

[91.

updating

shear

[Gl.

investigated

Incremental

of

was found

ground

soft' ground,

In finite

approximately

(81 and

foundation

considered

applied

be

have

OF NUMERICAL

rotation

was checked

direct

according

elements

(wall).

assumption,

serious

soft

discussed

does

on

interface

with multi-layer

stress/strain

problem.

cause

on

problem

be

mode

embankment

deformation

deformation
not

will

ASPECTS

Conventional

infinitesimal

and

The

embankment

Coordinates

reinforced

pullout

It

interaction

of this

Correction

both

results.

properties

and lower

embankment

on soft ground

(wall)

soil/reinforcement
behavior

soil/reinforcement
of upper

reinforced

embankment

face

proper
pattern

a base

practically

is a reinforced
a

of selecting

displacement

Note,
the
of

for

applied
the

node

Otherwise,

the

[61 _

For

the

analysis

is

450
checked

by

with

comparing

small

deformation

analysis

(not

updating

the

coordinates)

Variation

of Permeability

The

formula

[ill for several


permeability

proposed
natural

of soft

by Taylor

clays

clay

[lo] and verified

has been

during

used

e, is the

initial

consideration;

-+I

above

which

modelling

program

same

used

technique

with

for

newly
For

essentially

CRISP

same

ANALYSIS

A full scale
was constructed

reinforcement

and

the

the

The

surface

about

1:l

increase

0.19

grid

The diameters
The

total

about

vertical

in

with

by

been

theoretical
used

is

GRODND

test wall with

of the

a vertical

of Technology

element

model

program

investigate

between

on soft
grid

the

interaction

the

The
The

of the finite

embankment

formulated

face

(AIT).

CRISP-AIT.

the capability
reinforced

the soft,foundation

embankment

one
month

m/day.

(87 feet)
vertical
period
The

behavior

soil.

with

The

spacing

of reinforcement
bent-up
between

portion
the

was

face
an

wire

and

by Bergado

feet)

above

length.

front

welded

longitudinal

reported

(19.5

base

welded

of galvanized
the

was

is 5.8

are 5.4 mm for transverse

length

0.7 m.

26.0

one

consisted
openings

test

and

in

of

have

formulation

ON SOFT

Institute

is to investigate

and

embankment

slope

constructed

system

reinforced

and

the

the

[l].

by finite

soil,

checked

was

checked

Embankment

in detail.

with

Kwok

of Asian

interaction

mass

and

has been

C,
The

(121, and

used

formulations

element,

and

[ll].

program

procedure

EMBANKMENT

the response

backfill

reinforced

with

grid

analyzed

analysis

reinforced

Test

The

steel

and

et al

computer

standard

elements

REINFORCED

the campus

to predict
test

Reinforced

welded

has been

to

between

TEST

The

interface

by Hird

OF AIT

of this

method

ground,

as used

inside

system

purpose

element

beam

to Tavenas

numerical

under

permeability;

and its validity

[13].

and

at the condition

initial

in CRISP
The

program,

solution
bar

ratio

k, is the

is incorporated

included

(2)

O.Se, according

soil/reinforcement

the

embankment

to

computer

et al
of the

La -aI

e is the void

as CRISP-AIT.

classical

solution.

main

is equal

is renamed

as original

comparing

ratio;

k is the permeability;

is constant,

the

void

the Tavenas

the variation

consolidation.

k - k&o
where

by

to represent

It has

mats

rate

used

wire

transverse
bars

in

mesh

reinforcements

the
with

ground

sloping

fill
test
152

embankment
mm x 228

was

0.45

m.

of the
The

mm

respectively.

the bent-up
part

was

thickness

and 6.1 mm for longitudinal

formed

faces

embankment

directions,

5.7 m including

eventually

of

[14, 151

et al
existing

three
The

(wall).

average

steel

the

bars.

portion

of

facing.

The

embankment

was

451

divided

into

backfill
that

three

were

used

measurement
wires,

and

settlements,

subsoil

is depicted
soil

firm-to-stiff

clay,

perfect

1. the
thick

was

plastic

modified

based

difficult

gages

the

the

longitudinal

vertical

pressures
The

face.

bonded

clay

included

on both

strain
the

top

wire.

Bergado

for Bangkok
et al

used

with

an

clay

layer

average
are

sieve

no.

Proctor

(0.75

of

test yielded

19.3

was compacted
corresponding

to

parameters
tabulated

The

by

the

were

(OCR)

3.0

the optimum
the

the

of

mm

95 degree

consisting

content

direct

shear

et

of lateritic

0.002

al

soil

Standard

mm.

of 11.5%

construction,

and maximum
the backfill

at near
70%.

of corresponding

Duncan

soft

1.2.

soil has 18% passing

water

non-linear

as

overconsolidated

of

D,, of

by

permeabilities

underlying

and

hyperbolic,

by

permeability

OCR

about

the
(181.

settlement

the

of

method

that

5 and

of compaction

of the

value

an average

embankment

1.0

of permeabilities

low

The lateritic

saturation

proposed

3 sets

is heavily

section

(UU) test results

method

optimum

backfill

[201 and

materials
soil

elastic
the

water

triaxial

The

model

values

are

2.

interface

corresponding

to

determine

in Table

3 which

to about

undrained

D,, of

During

kN/m'.

content

used

with

show

of embankment

clay

with

analysis:

data

and

top

parameters
the

vertical

and

In Table

is one

test underestimated

middle,

ratio

the

following

the

crust,

layer

clay

at
the

elastic-

1.

of clays

information,

high,

Cam

test

analysis

in the middle

element

mm)

material

unconsolidated

namely:

material

compaction

density

back

clay

for

Other

The

overconsolidated

in finite

200

deposit,

modulus

2 times

that the laboratory

linear

in Table

[16, 171

determine.

weathered

weathered

permeability

approximately

overconsolidation

The backfill

data

The

properties
modelling,

The

are shown

Young's

test

[121.

the

zones.

empirically.

The top 2 m weathered

slightly

was considered

and

soil

of numerical

topmost

layers

on the preceding

1.

the general

to represent

the

soils

to

analysis,

in Table

for

laboratory
Gunn

clay

Based

in the

indicated

all

was

1191 showed

significantly.

5 layers

for other

parameters

with

and the transition

determined

on

and

permeability

However,

into

of

were

by Britto

horizontal

Table

pressures,

For the purpose

parameters

ratio
clay

determined

were

in

different

weathered

program

of the wall

strain

together
1.

clay

parameters

Poisson's

suggested

divided

model

Cam clay

weathered

profile

in Figure

foundation

dry

resistance

and

forces

pore

movements

of the longitudinal

soft

were

tension

lateral

wire

to three

soil,

instrumentation

therefore,

and

corresponding

lateritic

Parameters

the site

most

and

The

wall,

faces

A typical

were

sand,

section.

by electric

the bottom

its length

clayey

subsurface

of the

was measured

Model

each

strains,

surface

along

namely:

in

of

at the base

and

sections

materials,

hyperbolic
determined

backfill

material

from

model

laboratory

(211 and follows

parameters

direct

shear

the method

are
test

proposed

given

in

results

of

by Clough

;
i

9-l

B-

l-

Fig.

DARK GRAY SOFT CLAY


6 _ OFTEN WITH DECOMPO
SED wooD AND SANDY
SEAMS
6-

LAYERS

BROWN TO REDDISH

SOIL

L
0

LL
Q

oe

40

o-

60

i)

60

Campus

Index Properties,

W
=

20

LIMITS

AND

I,5

UNIT

WEIGHT
7

40

of Bangkok

STRENGTH

NO. I
NO. 2
NO. 3

30

kPa

SHEAR

o TEST
A TEST
q TEST

20

VANE

and Dutch Cone Resistance

tp

( kN/m

Vane Strength

(O/o

100

WATER CONTENT

ATTERBERG

IATURAL
4000

kPa

RESISTANCE

Clay at AIT

2000

CONE
6000

600

Table 1. Soil Parameters of Bangkok Clay

Parameter

Low
NOTE:

High:
Middle:
Low:

k.,

6.9

= 50 times of estimated average test value;


= 25 times of estimated average test value;
= 10 times of estimated average test value.

Horizontal permeability

is always 2 times of the vertical value.

454
and Duncan
model

[71.

are

bearing
4.

the

The

pullout

the

values

except
For

direct

tension

was

nr

and
as

wire

stress

x 10' kPa,
the

5.0

from

for

1221.

normal

Other

reinforcement,

of steel

compression

laboratory
soils

previously.
of grid

modulus
the

the

backfill

the geometry

and wall

bar is needed.

stiffness

case

the

stiffness

of

and

of

the

10' kN/m'

for

above

beside

the

the

respectively.

link were

for

end

Therefore,

Analysis

scale

embankment

curve

is also

by darker

is

The

gradient

investigators

above

the

ground

the

surface

analyses.

1, varied

of middle

drawn

and
for

self-weight

consolidation
in Table

was

2.

up

also

was

load

was

within

assigned

45 mm' which
1.0 m width.

The

nodal

nodes

The

the AIT

considering
to

by

test

simulated

interface

similar

contains

two
two

according

to

the

use

finite

problem

of

foundation

were

with void

fine

element

13 incremental

the selected

also

are

are

shown

mesh

at

mesh

used

All

by

For

each

analyses

are

permeability

according

in

high

embankment

layers.

conducted

ratio

indicated

not

The

[3, 231.

full

thickness/time

elements

elements

the

reinforced

fill

by two increments.

analyses

from
these

to the free end of reinforcement.

The bar and beam

and varied

the

link

Physically,

be adjusted

should

the

is 8.3

as 1.5 x 10' kN/m

problem.

to

bar,

modulus

values

the

simulated

permeability

permeability

steel

that

2:

was applied

Besides

area

contributed

referred

analyzing

For the

reinforcement

for analyzing

Figure

For clarity,

area

other

in

to be linear

cross-sectional

the shear

bars

current

adjacent

in Figure

line.
mesh

of

mesh used

shown

indicated

solid

mesh.

element

the

these

Finite

finite

The

the free end of reinforcement.

and size of elements

Element

face,

for nodal

stiffness

free

180 mm2.

individual

and below

represents

just

was

of

respectively,

considered

of cross-sectional

inertia

stiffness

lo6 kN/m,

The

width

of inertia

moment

face were

of 2.0 x 10' kPa.

For the wall

soil stiffness

10.

in Table

discussed

models,

modulus

bar per meter

the moment

of

two nodes

elements

value

from

10' kN/m'

Young's

and normal
x

connects

layer,

indicated

determined

already

pullout

is 6.0 x 10' kPa.

and

sum

The shear

stress

pullout

are

corresponding

the Young's

reinforcement

with

area of longitudinal

the

with

are

I,, wherein

defined

material

yielding

nodes,

resistance

Additional

parameters

were

bars

4 are calculated

shear

The welded

its

bearing

2.

case.

elastic

and

for pullout
in Table

model

friction

steel

R,,, R,,, and

in Table

both

parameters
tabulated

friction

skin

using

for determining

interface

was

skin

maximum

results
of

parameters

soil

values

angle,
6, between
reinforcement
c,, and skin friction
and the lateritic soil as well as the displacement,
d,,, for

surface

test

the

and

adhesion,

mobilizing

backfill
as

resistance

frictional

The

The

same

with

values
initial

to Equation

455
Table 2. Hyperbolic
Parameter

Value

Soil Parameters Used for Later&

Cohesion

Friction
Angle

c, &Pa)
60

Backfill Material

RI

Bulk
Modulus
Number
k,

Bulk
Modulus
Exponent
m

0.96

1050

0.24

Modulus
Number

Modulus
Exponent

Failure
Ratio

0, (1

32.5

1078

0.24

unit
Weight
y&N/n?)
20.0

Table 3. Parameters for Direct Shear Interaction Mode


Parameter

Cohesion

Friction
Angle

c, (Ha)
60

Value

Shear.
Stiffness
Exponent
nl

Failure
Ratio

w)

Shear
Stiffness
Number
k,

Rn

Stiffness
Number for
Reloading
41

32.5

10500

0.72

0.85

1300

Table 4. Additional Parameters for Pullout Interaction Mode


1
Parameter
Value

C,
&Pa)

6
(1

R,

50.0

9.0

0.1

nr

I,

S
(mm)

D
(mm)

d,
(mm>

AJA,

0.75

28

225.0

5.4

2.0

0.06

&
250

,O

Fill

Fig.

thickness

Finite Element

Mesh Used for AIT Test Reinforced

Embankment

5m

457
FINITE

ELEMENT

One analysis
deformation
is

on

deformation

a
is

deformation
analysis
analysis

yields
during

the

of

at

large,

of

90

face

the

new

analysis

For

deformation

layer.

of construction,

end

construction,

of

For

large

kPa,

deformation

settlement

large

The

vertical
forces

Excess

are made

ground

time

3 shows

together

surface.

the

The

soil

rate after

construction

value

predicted
well.

pore

by

at

up at

at

small

construction.

are

44

analysis,

kPa
the

mass

Thus,

and

maximum

than

it can be seen

is effective.

the

surface),

pressure

of the reinforced

study

corrected

is built

after

values

deformation

after

the wall

constructing

the ground

the comparison,

in this

that

that

only

the

large

are presented.

of finite

with

at

data

used

1 year

been

(3)

settlement

element

results

The data

face and subsoil

and

the

included

lateral

comparison

excess

pore

displacements,

with

the

pressures,
and tension

reinforcements.

foundation

field

From

has

pressure

excess

small

at

before

pore

corresponding

of

in this section.

prediction

higher

the

maximum

14kPa at 1 year

to the centerline

wall

layer

(7 m below

to

up at

and

construction,

layer

excess

55 mm

Pressure

Figure
with

HP5

calculated

case

results

settlements,

Pore

the

analysis

presentation

in the

point

the calculated

which,
is built

later;

settlement

during

of the previous

analysis.

analysis

field data

constructed

is closer

deformation

deformation

of a newly

analysis,

deformation

maximum

analysis,

In the

point

larger

in

rate

of

deformation

pressure

10 mm less

in about

of 54 kPa reduces

respectively.

of large

dissipation

the

small

the results

small

deformation,

layer
if

However,

(1)

pore

soil

process,

Comparing

excess

10 mm

and

analysis

lateral

(smaller

a new

changed.

(2) higher

For piezometer

the end

be

that:

deformation

deformation

process,

effects.

smaller

DATA

consolidation

shown

face

FIELD

the node coordinates

may

these
was

results

and

small

lateral

deformation

wall

during

length

it

with

construction

and

consider

less

construction

lateral

next

mm

WITH

construction

drainage

consolidation;

construction.

adding

the

embankment,

deformation

end

actual

system,

cannot

this

occurred

smaller

deformed

ANLl CDNPARISQN

by not updating

During

analyses
for

end

was conducted

analysis).

placed

RESULTS

the

excess

of

during

pore

whole

data

high
but

was too fast.

overall

process

excess

at

point

of excess

are

excess

of view.

However,

pressure

influenced

the
the

better

dissipation

analysis

predicts

analysis

fits

none

build-up

by

yields

pressure

permeability

variations

7 m below

analysis

pore

low permeability

middle
pore

pressure
point

strongly

permeability
the

The

The

pore

piezometer

pressures

The

construction

construction.
from

calculated

field

permeability.

end

better

typical
the

the

of

the analyses

and

dissipation

458
In

finite

element

correctly

pressure,
permeability
However,

of

the

as pointed

methods

to solve

method

are

and

boundary

under

research.

analysis

simulation

of

pore

variation

of

the

the

conditions

1241, there

The variation

for back

course,

a precise

values

and Lerouil

problems.

back

making

drainage

out by Tavenas

from

Of

for
the

and

is still

derived

preferred.

soils

these

and consolidation
values

analysis,

determining

are

are no satisfactory

of permeability

during

For permeability,

of

existing

analysis,

case

essential.

histories

the parameter

loading

if possible,

the

should

and

the

the

center

be

calculation

related.

Settlement
Calculated
reinforced
is

also

shown

calculated

by

the

maximum

other

value

this

The

4.

can

It

have

can

be

seen

remarkable

locations,

point

of settlement

the

that

agreement

agreement

of

plate
the
with

is also

10%.

for

finite

under

locations

figure.

plate

both

the middle

otherwise

The

the

of only

values,

case.

unless

in

settlement

that

test

settlements

permeability

comparison

the

average

sections,

sketch

middle

it appears

estimated
for

surface
in Figure

difference

Considering
settlements,

key

using
At

data.

with

measured

are compared

values

measured
good

and

mass

be

excess

pore

permeability,

i.e.

considered

be

element

to

results

indicated,

are

the

reported

all

from

and

pressures
k, is 25 times

of

representative

in the

middle

following

permeability

analysis.

In consolidation
related
pressure

slightly

Cam

prediction

clay

stress

carefully,

the analysis

up

time

the

point

the soils

Lateral

of

creep

250

increase

a measurement

factors,

have

not

but

of field

settlement

and effective

been

permeability

days,

slightly

data might

while

pore

settlement
of

such

pore

of the soil

model

as

for normal
the

field

If
data

underestimated

of

checked

very
the

be due to creep

to

effect

considered.

value

are

excess

model

matched

is an integrated

plate,

and

agreement

be the limitations

several

with middle

about

construction
be

the comparison
and

months

in the foundation
only

inserted

construction
lateral

5 shows

construction

displacements

not

might

pressure

the

well
final

of the soil.

of the deformation

pressure

is a point

of

value.

Displacement
Figure

end

of

is that

below

and

pore

between

is a simple

clay,

path,

Further

settlement.
Another

model

overconsolidated

different

to

the excess

discrepancy

and settlement
Although

used.

analysis,

The

factors.

and

reach
into

down
the

7 months

displacements

agreed

after

soils,

after
well

displacement

construction

the measured

to 3 m depth

deformed

at

of lateral

because

casing

below

construction,
with

the

data

profiles

3 m depth.

measured

lateral

up to 7 months

the inclinometer

the

for both

For

cases.

At

calculated
data.

after

probe
the

could
end

of

wall

face

However,

the

459
60

SS-

D40 OF

_
--

MIDDLE PERMEAEIIUM
VARIED PERMEAEIUM
LOW PERMEABIul-Y
______ HIGH PERMEABILITY
)~a,*
MEASURED

CONSTRUCTION

f\

'1
' \

52-

-_-

Typical Calculated and Measured Excess Pore Pressure Variation

Fig. 3

_
-_____
1.8..

IOOO=
,IlW

MIDDLE PERME4EKi-iY
LOW PERME4BILllY
HIGH PERMEABlLfTf
MEASURED

.
i END
,,:,,,,,,

Fig. 4

OF CONSlRUCTlON
1M

,,,,,,,,,

,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'
404

Typical Calculated and Measured Settlement Curves

500

pl

R
@

ELEVATION

RELATIVE

TO ORIGINAL

GROUND

SURFACE,

r-n

461

calculated
measured
than

subsoil

lateral

At

data.

the

the col-responding

The

the

It was

probably

sudden

total

wall

face

lateral

due

After

displacements

show

obtained

calculated

by the

analytical

method

inclinometer

the soil

deformed

to an

Force
The

the

width

of

much

deduced

too

from
Also

much

In a reinforced

value

of

soil.

the

If

pressure
induced

to

is

be

the

value

The
layer

two

the

during

the

reasons

(2) the

case

for

and those
of the

influence

relative

of

displacements

wherein

the casing

after

are

At the middle

(minus

The

strain)

reinforced
the

calculated

maximum

by

top half

of wall,
are much

earth

(positive

force

on

in the

pressure

under

meter

data

show

wall

are close

the wall

to

than

k, line'.

pressure

developed
The

in the reinforcements.

passive

constructed

earth

the data
higher

displacement

wall

however,

per

of the

on the deformation

tension

at-rest

wall on soft ground,

and

of
The

the

horizontal

active

terms

spacing).

data

included

are

force

and passive

The

is not

at the end of construction,

depends

of

in

after
together

immediately

lines.

construction

the horizontal

pressure

occurrence

7,

at the

height

by tension

Figure

pressure

presented

the data

structure,

earth

no

data

immediately
in

in reinforcement

earth

(0.45 m vertical

of the wall,

wall

shown

strain

on soft greund

developed.

For

are

in the reinforcements

horizontal

reinforcement,

reinforced

between

and the measured

are

reinforcements

at 1 year

to be balanced

by active

respectively.
stiff

need

there

will

in

the

(1) the deficiency


and

was

under

displacements

for this

is at-rest

strain

embankment

forces

in

the measured
shown

than k, line.

mass

There

result

construction

scatter.

At the bottom

in soil

there

occurred

the calculated

1251;

especially

forces

reinforcement

tension

larger

mostly

namely:

may

because

For the point

lateral

Poulos

which

after

the measured

per

k, line.

by

the casing,

1 year

for reinforced

maximum

analyses,

out

At that

displacements.

the discrepancy

rate.

element

tension

and

data

and

increment

ground

in Reinforcement

from

because

both

6 for two

"S" shape.

construction.

deduced

that

and

less

the calculated

lateral

[141.

surface,

the measured

stiffness

maximum

construction

after

small

in Figure

between

of

displacements

construction,

pointed

casing

between

Tension

as

are

the original

rainfall

time

between

finite

as that of

values

the construction.

rate

of heavy

ground

lateral

is shown

after

increased

at that

original

period.

the differences

an

increase

the measured

as large

(b) 3 m below

the discrepancy

to the occurrence
level

twice

calculated

relationship
face and

at 3 months

showed

3 m below

and

construction

appears

data

water

and

calculated

with

displacement

values

measured

the

ones.

(a) top of the wall

the measured

time,

qre nearly
face,

For the top of the wall face,

surface.
and

measured

time-lateral

namely:

points,

displacements

top of the wall

earth

pressure

strain)
rigid

status

at-rest

will

foundation

loading,

be

displacement,

reinforcement
coefficient

of

earth

with

is close
[41.

For

the soft soil

462

TOP

OF ME

WALL

<3360&?.0I5
Ok-

4
1
CL =a
v-l
sm-

__----

---

_---

3 m BELOW THE
GROUND
SURFACE

-I
.d 1cJJ-

END OF CONSRUCTION
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,1,

ORIGINAL

VUBMEWJRDJ
3 m DWIH
_
CA_CULATEfI TOP
-aLcuwEll3
m OEmH
,,,l,,,,r,,,,,r,,r~~

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Maximum Lateral Displacement

Maximum Reinforcement

Curves

Tension Force Profiles

463
tends

to squeeze

relative

out

movement

tension

force

The

large

mass,

reduce

the

tension

top

the

wall,

face

(Figure

the reasons

The

further

the

construction

wall,

lateral

and

The
after
the

twice

amount

are

Generally

speaking,

results

(direct

shear/pullout

strains

is fair.

interaction

mode

yields
in

larger

the

tension

lower

half

shear/pullout
evident

has

of

for

soil/reinforcement
face

results

There

is no clearly

value

observed

from

is
the

failure

and shear

strength)

is 0.8.

high,

high.
contour

mode

occurs

0.4,

bending

of stress

and

above

level

on

with

small

deduced

The

between

the
high

and

direct

mode

not

is

structure,
and

the

located

near

in Figure

the embankment

9.

from

condition.

highest

stress

level

at the toe of the wall

the embankment
91,

this

force

in tension

construction

occurs

from

stiffness

as shown

within

is

element

tension

earth

of

(Figure

effect

tendency

soil/reinforcement

interface

mass

line.

At the zone inside

about

The

end

potential

interaction

is relatively
level

stress

data

the

are

levels

at

immediately

interaction

zones

of stress

of the

finite

difference

of the reinforced

analysis

those

of the reinforcement

shear

mode

of the

the

the

the

that

reinforced

interaction

element

and

The

direct

particular

defined

shear

soil/reinforcement

stress

this

.times,

reinforcement

wall.

and

the contour

finite

and the highest

mode

at the bottom

10 shows
of

(ratio between

level

reinforced

than

due

half

reinforcement

between

shows

length

after

construction

lower

mode has weaker

longer

At the top
1 year

In the bottom

the

on

the

induced

smaller.

mode)

10 also

during

at

after

For other

influence

and

the

pullout

and

Figure
the

force

8.

agreement

interaction

interaction

because

the wall

strong

The pullout

forces

slightly

are much

interface

Figure

face.

along

the

at
wall

is one of

face deformation.

immediately

are

in Figure

face

the

consolidation

tension

of the wall

distributions
shown

to

increased

the

wall

as those

increments

measured

distribution.

because

of increments

force

and

embankment,

close

of the wall

reinforcements

reinforcement

large

the percentage

tension

in the

displacement

construction
same.

as

on

bottom

at top of the wall.

and lateral

maximum

the

convex

induced

at

this

very

the

be

force

For

occurred

large
large

can change

can

effect
tension

deformation

process

settlement
the

the absolute

top half,

forces

also

Following

of the wall.

force

causes

Therefore,

at bottom.

mass.

the

force

lateral

tension

tension

are

to the large

large

placed

bending

part

tension

consolidation

wall,

of

which

soil.

of the ground

increase

at upper

maximum
the

differential

of

to

mass

the

reinforced

amount

the higher

soil

the

tends

force

maximum

foundation

half

certain

10) and
for

and

settlement

within

which

the

the -reinforced

in the reinforcements

and differential

settlement,

of

the reinforcement

condition

reinforced

of

the base

is developed

stress/strain
shapes

of

between

the

zone,

the

embankment
value

where

value

pullout

of

stress

gradient
also

of stress

of

can

be

level

at

464

-____
. . . . .

0-e

DIRECT SHEAR/PULLOUT
DIRECT SHEAR MODE
PUUOUT
MODE
MWURal

MODE

WT
7
ik*OSm
40-

m-_-__ _
.

WE

x:\ O

_--

-___

-__?-A_____

UAT.4
aL?nm

UAT 3
a: ,J!l n

NJ-

10

KAr

Eko.um

w-

.
-

.
--.
l

.
.

-----______

,,,,,,,,,,,1,11,,11,111111111,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,llt
7.

DISTANCE
Fiu2 0

FROM

Reinforcement

ME

Tension

WALL

FACE,

Force Distribution

465

DIRECT SHEAR MOOE

PULLOUT

MODE

REINFORCEME

Fig.

Pullout and Direct Shear Soil/Reinforcement

Fig. 10

Interaction Zone

Contours of Stxss Level within Embankment

466

the bottom
shaped

of the embankment

zone

at top

of

INTERACTION

The
load
under

response

can

be

rigid

BETWEEN

Any factor

tending

in larger

settlement

into

and

under

of

soil/reinforcement

foundation

Although
profiles
The

stiffness,

other
the

direct

and

resulting

it

the

hand,
soil

direct

the

reinforced

interaction

under

the wall

reinforced

mass.

As discussed

also

force

more

in

the

foundation
between

the

pattern.

consolidation

reinforced

The

state

at

mass

higher

the

lower

rate

also

soft

foundation

of

the

influence
by

the

patterns

more

foundation

more

tension
The

wall.

interaction

the

the

mass.

and

influencing

permeability,

less

of

between

reinforced

the

making

in

centerline

means

body
On the

stiffness

soil

part

ground

rigid

reinforced

is

shear

face.

settlement

soil

the

tangent

resulting

displacement

the

modes

foundation

lateral

of

between

like

at the

result

deformation

the wall
tangent

of

lateral

influence

due to the interaction

foundation

the

will

smaller

stronger
more

that

loading.

interaction

easier,

settlement

mass

and

the

under

out

in the

face

and

has

different

compressible

reinforcement

soil

more

surface

difference

deformed

previously,

wall

the

as

foundation

pullout

nearly

squeeze

soil mass,

more

displacement,

wall

embankment

same

flexible

mode has a weaker

and

the stress/strain

Generally,
lateral

a reinforced

shows

and

mass

to

face

and r-einforced

influence

in a convex

GROUND

(1) the

on the

mode

occurring

embankment

settlement

soft ground

shear

interaction

settlement

11

modes

significant,

not

shear

the pullout
under

0.05)

of the reinforced

Figure

soil.

using

whole

in larger

under

namely:

the rigidity

interaction
is

of

SOFT

the toe of the reinforced

spreading

settlement

soil

extremes,

AND

(21 the same as that under

different
pattern.

(less than

MASS

foundation

two

to increase

the

level

REINFORCED

of the soft

classified
footing,

evident.

and low stress

the embankment.

the

smaller

behavior

deformation
the

lateral

[ll

displacement

CONCLUSIONS

:11

The

finite

reinforced

soil

2)

that

selected

and

process

be most

Embankment

loading
induce

will

base

of

spacing

tension

used

to simulate

ground.

(direct
closely

will

shear

cause

mass.

and

of a

exercise

properties

displacement

or pullout),

behavior

can be

pattern

between

the construction

simulated.
large

total

effect

force may occur

stronger

the

modelling

The
interaction

to the relative

the bending

reinforced
or

been

soft

the soil/reinforcement
according

which

has

on

reinforcement
can

maximum

method

embankment

demonstrates
properly

element

For

and differential

on the reinforced

at the reinforcement
design

reinforcement

purposes,

should

be used

settlement,

soil

mass.

layer placed
the
at

smaller
this

The
at the

vertical

location

to

467

-200

-I

-100

1w
7.W300+0(1.xwlEOQ7wdMQoolccu11001

Dl$&W&WJ_oUT

14x-z-z

L400E

OlRfCT

SHE43
WOE
1%X-=UMUREI,
MO OF COHSRC,,ON
-I-.U
YQ.SURED
1 tuR
AFrGl
CONSRUCIION
1.%x
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
O

IO

HORIZONTAL

Fig. 11

,,(,,,,,,
7.0

,
30

DISTANCE,

Comparison of Settlement Patterns

I,,

I4a

468

restrict

the

foundation

lateral

soil,

spreading

and

also

of backfill

to

avoid

and

the

squeezing

yielding

of

out

high

of

soft

stiffness

reinforcement.
(31

The

response

during
forces

in

increased
(4)

of

permeability

the

and

predicted

element
based

found

that

and

on back

analyzed

predicted
agreed

between

in reinforcements,

measured

face

data

indicate

selection

values

reasonably

varied
tension
are

pore

lateral

the

the

foundation

histories.

settlements
with

that

can be predicted

of

from case

well

excess

is

Both

displacements

on soft ground

proper

and foundation

ground

soil.

increased.

foundation

predicted

soft

wall

embankment

through

the

on

foundation

lateral

method

displacements

agreement

of the

of consolidation

of the reinforced

finite

lateral

the

embankment

process

the degree

of

performance

been

reinforced

reinforcements
when

Comparison

by

the

the consolidation

and

the

field

pressures,

displacements

It has

wall

face

data,

tension

and

forces

are quite

fair.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The test
by the U.S.
conducted
provided
are

reinforced

Agency

for

at the Asian
by

the

galvanized

Institute

USAID,

gratefully

embankment

was part

International

Bangkok,

acknowledged.

welded-steel

grid

of Technology
Thailand

The

following

constant

friction

interface

constant

c,

adhesion

ct

constant

unit

of grid

area

provide

(USAID),
(AIT).

the

Co.

project

sponsored

Bangkok,

Thailand,

The

financial

facilities

of

the

provided

U.S.A.

support
by AIT

donated

the

reinforcements.

notations

area

and

Hilfiker

Appendix:

of a research

Development

NOTATIONS

are used

in this

paper:

reinforcement,
shear

for permeability

resistance

variation

with

void

ratio

relationship

length

thickness

d Cr

critical

of grid

d,
E

normalized
Young's

modulus

S,

initial

tangent

B,P

initial

slope

reinforcement

displacement
pullout

transverse

for mobilizing

maximum

initial

moment

1,

bearing

void
of

friction

resistance

of the reinforcement
modulus
of

pullout

bearing

resistance/normalized

ratio

inertia

member

skin

displacement

curve
e,

member

deflection

rigidity

index

displacement

469
k

horizontal

k,

at-rest

k,
k ,(

shear

k 'P

bearing

k,

vertical

skin

earth

earth

pressure

pressure

stiffness
friction

of

coefficient

coefficient

interface

component

resistance

of interface

component

span

of the

bulk

modulus

N,

bearing

capacity

factor

for cohesion

N,
nr

bearing

capacity

factor

for overburden

P,
R

atmospheric
bearing

resistance

Rf,

failure

ratio

for pullout

RI

initial

slope

ration

between

RI0

initial

slope

ratio

for rigid

R,
R IC

critical

space

S/B

bearing

S/D

rough

S,/B

free

S"

vertical

stiffness

angle

unit

two

stiffness

ends

fixed

beam

exponent

in bearing

resistance

ratio

resistance
resistance
and space

ratio

relationship

pressure
ratio
bearing

resistance

pullout
bearing

and

triaxial

test

member

ratio
stiffness

between
member
sheet

ratio

two neighboring
space

space

interference

members

ratio
space

of rotation

transverse

ratio

reinforcement

ratio
spacing

failure

zone

for bearing

capacity

problem

weight

angle

Ub

bearing

resistance

abn

maximum

pullout

of skin

friction
on grid

bearing

O'h

effective

horizontal

0"
T

effective

normal

friction

shear

stiffness
shear

permeability

exponent

shear

of interface

reinforcement

bearing

member

resistance

stress

stress

stress
angle

Anpendix-REFERENCES
1.

Hird, C.C. and Kwok, C.M., Prediction


for the Stanstead
Abbotts
trial
embankment,
based on the finite element method. Proc. of the Prediction
Svm~. on Reinforced
Embankment
on Soft Ground, Strand,
London
(19861.

2.

Rowe, R.K. and Mylleville,


B.L.J.,
The analysis
of steel
reinforced
embankment
on soft clay foundation.
Proc. 6th Intl. Conf. on Numerical
Methods
in Geotechnics,
Innsbruck
(1988) 1273-1278.

3.

Schaefer,
U.R. and Duncan,
J.M..
Finite element
Alban
test
embankments,
ASCE
Geotech.
Special
(1988), 158-177.

4.

J.K. and Christopher,


B., Finite element modelling
Adib. M., Mitchell,
of reinforced
soil walls and embankments.
Desisn
and Performance
of
Earth Retaining
Structure,
ASCE Geotech.
Special
Publication,
No. 25
(1990) 409-423.

analyses
of the
Publication
No.

St.
18,

470

5.

Herrmann,
L.R., User's
Manual
and reinforced
earth analysis
California,
U.S.A.
(1978).

6.

Chai, J.C. and Bergado,


D.T., Performance
Muar clay deposit.
Soils and Foundations,

7.

Clough, G.W. and Duncan, J.M., Finite element analysis of retaining


wall
behavior.
J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Enq'q. Div., ASCE, 97(12)
(1971)
1657-1673.

Carter,
J.P.,
Booker,
J.R. and Small,
J.C., The analysis
elasto-plastic
consolidation.
and
Intl. J. for Numerical
Method
in Geomechanics,
3(2) (1979) 107-130.

9.

Rowe, R.K., Reinforced


embankments,
analysis
Enq. Div., ASCE, llO(2)
(1984) 231-246.

10.

Taylor, D.W.,
York (1948).

11.

Tavenas,
F., Jean, P., Leblond,
P., and Leroueil,
S., The permeability
of natural
soft clays,
part
II, permeability
characteristics.
Can.
Geotech.
J. 20 (1983) 645-660.

12.

Britto, A.M. and Gunn, M.J., Critical


Elements.
Ellis Horwood
(1987).

13.

Hird, C.C., Pyrah, I.C. and Rusell, D., Finite element analysis
collapse
of reinforced
embankment
on soft ground.
Geotechnique,
(1990) 633-640.

14.

Bergado,
D.T., Sampaco, C.L., Shivashankar,
R., Alfaro, M.C., Anderson,
L.R. and Balasubramaniam,
A.S., Performance
of a welded wire wall with
poor quality backfills
on soft clay. Proc. ASCE Geotech.
Enq'q. Concress
at Boulder,
Colorado,
U.S.A., ASCE Geotech.
Special
Publication
No. 27
(1991a) 909-922.

15.

Bergado,
D.T.,
Shivashankar,
R., Sampaco,
Behavior
of a welded
wire
Anderson,
L.R.,
cohesive-frictional
backfills
on soft Bangkok
Geotech.
J. 20(6) (1991b) 860-880.

16.

Balasubramaniam,
A.S., Hwanq, Z.M.. Uddin, W., Chaudhry,
A.R. and Li.
state parameters
and peak stress envelopes
for Bangkok
Y.G., Critical
clays. 9.5. Enq'q. Geol., 11 (1978)' 219-232.

17.

Asakami,
H., The smear effect
Asian Institute
No. GT-88-8,

18.

of permeability
profile of soft
Ahmed, M.M., Determination
by field
and
laboratory
tests.
M. Enq'q.
Thesis,
No.
Institute
of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand
(1977).

19.

Balasubramaniam,
Bergado,
D.T..
Ahmed,
S.,
Sampaco,
C.L.,
Settlements
of Banqna-Bangpakong
Highway
on soft Bangkok
clay.
Geotech.
Enq'q. Div.. ASCE, 116(l) (1990) 136-155.

20.

Duncan, J.M., Byrne, Wong, K.S. and Mabry, P., Strength,


stress-strain
and bulk modulus parameters
for finite element analysis of stresses and
movements
in soil, Geotech.
Enq'q. Research
Reoort No. UCB/GT/BO-01,
Dept. of Civil Eng'g., Univ. of California,
Berkeley
(1980).

21.

lateritic
backfill
and
steel
grid
Macatol,
K.C.,
Interaction
of
reinforcements
at high vertical
stress using pullout
test. M. Enq'q
Asian
Institute
of Technology,
Bangkok,
Thailand
Thesis,
GT-89-12,
(1990).

Fundamentals

for REA (general two dimensional


program).
Univ. of California,

of reinforced
33(4).

of Soil Mechanics.

State

and design.

John Wiley

Soil

soils
Davis,

embankment

on

of finite
Analvtical

J. of Geotech.

& Sons

Mechanics

Inc.

via

New

Finite

of the
40(4)

C.L.,
Alfaro,
M.C.
and
wall
with poor
quality,
clay (a case study). Can.

of vertical band drains.


of Technology,
Bangkok,

M. Enq'c. Thesis.
Thailand
(1989).
Rangsit clay
Asian
1002,

A.S.,
J. of

471
22.

of a mechanically
stabilized
earth
Shivashankar,
R., Behavior
(MSE)
embankment
with poor quality backfills
on soft clay deposits,
including
Asian
a study
of the pullout
resistances.
D. Eno'q.
Dissertation,
Institute
of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand
(1991).

23.

Finite
element
S.H.
and Mitchell,
J.K.,
Schmertmann,
G.R.,
Chew,
modelling
of reinforced
soil wall behavior.
Geotech.
Enq'q. Reoort, No.
of California,
Berkeley
Dept.
of Civil
Eng'g.
Univ.
UCB/GT/89-01,
(1989).

24.

F.
Tavenas,
foundations.

25.

in prediction
of horizontal
deformation
in
Poulos,
H.G., Difficulties
foundations.
J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Eno's. Div., ASCE, 98(B) (1972)
843-848.

and Leroueil,
S., The behavior
Canadian
Geotech.
J., 17 (1980),

of embankments
236-260.

Received 27 April 1994; revised version received 24 June 1994; accepted


29 June 1994

on

clay

Вам также может понравиться