Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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
foundation
used
by
greater
soil/reinforcement
modelling
programs
ignoring
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
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
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
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
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
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
proposed
natural
of soft
by Taylor
clays
clay
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
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
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;
[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
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.
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
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
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.
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
determined
on
and
permeability
However,
into
of
were
by Britto
horizontal
Table
pressures,
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
parameters
direct
shear
the method
are
test
proposed
given
in
results
of
by Clough
;
i
9-l
B-
l-
Fig.
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
tp
( kN/m
Vane Strength
(O/o
100
WATER CONTENT
ATTERBERG
IATURAL
4000
kPa
RESISTANCE
Clay at AIT
2000
CONE
6000
600
Parameter
Low
NOTE:
High:
Middle:
Low:
k.,
6.9
Horizontal permeability
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
and varied
the
link
Physically,
be adjusted
should
the
is 8.3
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
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
soil stiffness
10.
in Table
discussed
models,
modulus
the moment
of
two nodes
elements
value
from
10' kN/m'
Young's
and normal
x
connects
layer,
indicated
determined
already
pullout
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
-_-
Fig. 3
_
-_____
1.8..
IOOO=
,IlW
MIDDLE PERME4EKi-iY
LOW PERME4BILllY
HIGH PERMEABlLfTf
MEASURED
.
i END
,,:,,,,,,
Fig. 4
OF CONSlRUCTlON
1M
,,,,,,,,,
,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'
404
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
and
of
The
the
horizontal
active
terms
spacing).
data
included
are
force
and passive
The
is not
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
are
reinforcements
at 1 year
to be balanced
by active
respectively.
stiff
need
there
will
in
the
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
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.
the measured
time,
qre nearly
face,
surface.
and
measured
time-lateral
namely:
points,
displacements
earth
pressure
strain)
rigid
status
at-rest
will
foundation
loading,
be
displacement,
reinforcement
coefficient
of
earth
with
is close
[41.
For
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 Reinforcement
Curves
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
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.
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
mode
at the bottom
10 shows
of
(ratio between
level
reinforced
than
due
half
reinforcement
between
shows
length
after
construction
lower
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
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
PULLOUT
MODE
REINFORCEME
Fig.
Fig. 10
Interaction Zone
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
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
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
spreading
settlement
soil
extremes,
AND
different
pattern.
(less than
MASS
foundation
two
to increase
the
level
REINFORCED
of the soft
classified
footing,
evident.
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
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,
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.
2.
3.
Schaefer,
U.R. and Duncan,
J.M..
Finite element
Alban
test
embankments,
ASCE
Geotech.
Special
(1988), 158-177.
4.
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.
7.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
on
clay