A Comparisson of Different Two Dimensional Idealization For Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment

International Journal of Geomechanics.
Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted October 12, 2012;

posted ahead of print October 13, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000266
A Comparison of Different Two Dimensional Idealizations for a

Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment
1 2 3
Priyanath Ariyarathne ; D. S. Liyanapathirana ; and C. J. Leo
Abstract
Embankment construction on soft ground has increased considerably over recent years as a result of
the increase in infrastructure development activities and due to the unavailability of suitable land.
Geosynthetic reinforced pile-supported (GRPS) embankments provide an effective and reliable
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 10/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
solution to the problem of constructing embankments over soft ground. The combination of
t
ip
geosynthetic reinforcement and piles can alleviate the uneven surface settlements on the
embankment crest while reducing the embankment load transferred to the soft foundation soil. This
d cr
paper presents a numerical analysis based on the finite element method carried out on a GRPS
embankment. Analysis was carried out in both two-dimensional plane strain condition for different two-
te s
dimensional idealizations of piles and in three-dimensional condition. The interaction between
geosynthetic and soil was taken into consideration during the analysis. The results obtained for the
di nu
two-dimensional models are compared with the three-dimensional model results. The stress
transferred to the piles and foundation soil, lateral displacements, development of settlements at the
ye a
base of the embankment on both foundation soil and piles and the generation and dissipation of
excess pore water pressures during and after construction for both two-dimensional and three-
op M
dimensional models are discussed.

C ted
Keywords: pile-supported embankment, geosynthetic reinforcement, three-dimensional modelling
Introduction
ot p
Embankments are widely used in many infrastructure development projects in order to elevate the
ground surface for construction. Due to the unavailability of proper land for construction, many projects
N ce
are currently being undertaken on soft grounds which were previously considered unsuitable.
Construction on soft soil is a challenging task due to the undesirable characteristics of soft soil such as
Ac
low bearing capacity, insufficient shear strength and high compressibility and therefore, requires
special attention on stability and settlements.
Various techniques have been used in practice in order to overcome these problems and improve the
soft ground for embankment construction (Mitchell 1981; Magnan 1994; Shen et al. 2005). These
include using lightweight fill materials for the embankment fill, reducing the slope of the embankment,
preloading, constructing in stages leaving time for consolidation, over excavating the existing ground
and replacing with suitable materials, providing vertical drains, vacuum consolidation, providing
reinforcement for the embankment and adding column supports. Column supports can be hard
1
PhD Candidate, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, NSW
2747, Australia. E-mail: p.ariyarathne@uws.edu.au
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, NSW
2747, Australia. E-mail: s.liyanapathirana@uws.edu.au
3
Associate Professor, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney,
NSW 2747, Australia. E-mail: c.leo@uws.edu.au
Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Int. J. Geomech.
International Journal of Geomechanics. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted October 12, 2012;
columns such as piles (Jenck et al. 2009; Han et al. 2012) or semi hard columns such as deep cement
mixed columns (Huang and Han 2009) and stone columns (Deb et al. 2007). All the above mentioned
ground improvement methods have their advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation
they are being used. This study mainly focuses on embankments supported by piles and reinforced
with geosynthetics.
Geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported (GRPS) embankments provide an attractive solution for
the problem of embankment construction on soft foundation soil. The main objective of adding pile
supports is to transfer a larger proportion of embankment load through piles to firm ground rather than
t
the surrounding foundation soil. The piles used can be cast in situ piles or driven piles. The
ip
advantages of using this system are: the embankment can be constructed in a single stage without
prolonged waiting periods hence, suitable for fast-track construction, the total and differential
d cr
settlements of the embankment are significantly reduced as well as the lateral displacements, pile
spacing can be increased and the pile cap width can be reduced compared to conventional pile-
te s
supported embankments (i.e., pile-supported but without geosynthetic reinforcement).
di nu
Since pile installation is expensive, use of GRPS embankments is not economical compared to
consolidation based methods. Therefore, the selection of this method is based on the time constrains
of the project and the site conditions. If the site consists of problematic deposits such as wastes from
ye a
mining operations, Brownfield sites, landfills or dumps, it is difficult to test or sample the ground using
op M
routine methods used for soils. Hence it is difficult to predict the stiffness and strength gain if
consolidation based methods are used in these sites. Also consolidation based methods may squeeze
out significant quantities of contaminated water (FWHA-RC-BAL-04-0015). Hence GRPS
C ted
embankments are suitable for these site conditions as a reliable construction technique. .
Numerous studies (both numerical and experimental) have been carried out in the last few decades on
pile-supported embankments with or without geosynthetic, to investigate their behaviour and the load
ot p
transfer mechanism (Hewlett and Randolph 1988; Low et al. 1994; Han and Wayne 2000; Li et al.
N ce
2003; Collin 2004; Han et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2010; Hong et al. 2011; Eskisar et al 2012). Many
authors have assumed that the load transfer takes place by soil arching which was originally
introduced by Terzaghi (1943). Han and Gabr (2002) describes the load transfer mechanism as a
Ac
combination of soil arching, the tensioned membrane or stiffened platform effect of the geosynthetic
reinforcement and the stress concentration due to stiffness difference between piles and surrounding
foundation soil. This load transfer can be evaluated using the stress concentration ratio which is
defined as the ratio of the average vertical stress on top of the pile (or pile cap) to the average vertical
stress on the surrounding foundation soil. Higher stress concentration ratio values mean a higher load
is transferred to the piles.
A geosynthetic reinforced pile supported embankment is a three dimensional problem. Therefore, in

order to get more accurate results from a numerical analysis, three dimensional numerical modelling
should be carried out. But this might not be possible all the time due to the practical limitations. Three
dimensional numerical modelling usually can be very complicated and need computers with a high
processing power and also can be extremely time consuming depending on the complexity of the
problem. Due to this reason, a large number of studies in the area of pile-supported embankments
were carried out in two dimensional plane strain condition. Two dimensional numerical modelling is
Int. J. Geomech.
less complex compared to the three dimensional modelling and less time consuming as well.
Therefore, two dimensional modelling is more popular than three dimensional modelling and the
results also can be achieved with a reasonable accuracy.
Different approaches to transform a real three dimensional problem to a two dimensional plane strain
idealization can be found in the literature (Figure 1). The three dimensional piles are modelled as
continuous walls with equivalent thickness teq or equivalent elastic modulus Eeq. Bergado and Long
(1994) have adopted a method for this purpose by keeping the ratio of pile area to the total soil cell
area containing the pile (AP/AE) a constant as shown in Figure 1(a). The ratio AP/AE is also known as
t
the area replacement ratio (as). The equivalent thickness of the walls can be found using the following
ip
equation.
d cr
(1)
te s
where, sx and sy are the pile spacing in x and y directions respectively.
di nu
Another way of modelling the piles in two dimensional plane strain condition is the use of an
equivalent elastic modulus for the pile walls, keeping the thickness of the wall the same as the pile
diameter (Figure 1.b). The equivalent modulus is calculated using the area replacement ratio as
ye a
mentioned in Huang et al. (2009) as follows, where Ep and Es are the elastic moduli of pile and soft soil
op M
respectively.
(2)
C ted
Another way of doing this is by taking the normal stiffness of the piles into consideration as shown in
Figure 1(c). Equivalent elastic modulus of the walls can be found by;
(3)
ot p
where, Aw is the plan area of pile wall.

N ce
For the same purpose of achieving an equivalent elastic modulus, Stewart et al. (1993) has adopted a
different approach using the flexural stiffness of the piles. The thickness of the wall remains at the
Ac
same value as the pile diameter (Figure 1.c) and the equivalent elastic modulus is calculated using the
following equation.
(4)
where, Iw, Ip and Is are the second moment of areas of the pile wall, pile and soft soil respectively.
The given equations are valid only for square or rectangular pile arrangements. For triangular
arrangements, they need to be modified. According to Stewart et al. (1993), the method using the
flexural stiffness of the piles will make a closer predictions to the experimental results only for relatively
flexible piles.
Although several methods are available in literature to idealize a three dimensional problem to a two
dimensional plane strain problem, there is no universally accepted method. However, by going
through previous studies, different approaches used depending on the problem analysed, seems to be
giving sufficiently accurate results (Bergado and Long 1994; Stewart et al. 1993; Huang et al. 2009).
Int. J. Geomech.
This study concentrates on comparing all the above mentioned methods with a case study. The
selected case study was first analysed using a three dimensional numerical model and then the two
dimensional models were analysed. The results are compared with the three dimensional model
results as well as the field measurements to investigate the most appropriate two dimensional
idealization method.
Site Conditions and Geometry of the Embankment

The geosynthetic reinforced pile supported embankment considered in this study is located in a
t
northern suburb of Shanghai, China. A detailed description of the site conditions, instrumentation and
ip
the embankment construction process is described by Liu et al. (2007). The cross section of the
instrumented embankment and the soil profile are shown in Figure 2. The top most soil layer is a 1.5
d cr
m thick coarse-grained fill layer and below that is a 2.3 m thick silty clay layer. Underneath the silty
clay layer is a soft silty clay layer which is 10.2 m thick and that overlies a medium silty clay layer of 2
te s
m thickness. This is followed by a sandy silt layer which is relatively stiff compared to the overlying
di nu
silty clay layers. The ground water table (GWT) is located at a depth of 1.5 m below the ground
surface.
ye a
The embankment spans 120 m long, has a height of 5.6 m and a crest width of 35.2 m. The side
slopes are 1:1.5 (vertical:horizontal). The piles used to support the embankment are cast in-situ
op M
concrete annulus piles with a wall thickness of 120 mm, 1m diameter and 16 m of length. The top 0.5
m of the piles were cast as solid cylindrical piles as a measure to recover any damages to the top part
C ted
of the annulus caused by the withdrawal of the double wall casing. Piles are supported on the sandy
silt layer and have a centre to centre spacing of 3 m.
The geosynthetic layer used is a biaxial polypropylene grid (TGGS90-90) with a tensile strength of 90
kN/m in both longitudinal and transverse directions. The maximum allowable tensile strain is 8%. The
ot p
geosynthetic reinforcement layer is sandwiched between two gravel layers. A 0.25 m thick layer of
N ce
gravel is placed on top of the pile head level so that the geosynthetic layer can be placed without any
damage above the pile heads. After laying the geosynthetic layer, another 0.25 m thick gravel layer
was placed on top of that in order to create a working platform for the embankment construction
Ac
making the total thickness of the geosynthetic bearing layer 0.5 m. Then the embankment was
constructed on top of the gravel bed over a period of 55 days.
Numerical Modelling
Material Model and Parameters
The material properties used in the analysis are presented in Liu et al. (2007). These parameters were
taken from the typical measured values from Shanghai and by using laboratory test results. They are
summarised in Table 1.
The constitutive behaviour of the four silty layers shown in Figure 2(a) was modelled using the
Modified Cam Clay (MCC) model. The required parameters for the MCC model are slope of the virgin
consolidation line, ; slope of the swell line, ; void ratio at unit pressure, e1; slope of the critical state
Int. J. Geomech.
line, M and Poissons ratio, . These four layers are considered to be normally consolidated. A linear
elastic-perfectly plastic model with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used to model the embankment
fill, coarse grained fill and the gravel bed. The parameters used for this model are effective cohesion,
c, friction angle, , dilation angle, , Youngs modulus, E and Poissons ratio, . The geosynthetic
layer and piles were modelled as linear elastic materials. Interface friction is considered between the
gravel bed and the geosynthetic layer during the analysis and the interface friction angle is assumed
to be as same as the friction angle of gravel. The interaction between piles and soil was not taken into
account during the analysis due to convergence problems.
t
ip
Three Dimensional Finite Element Modelling
d cr
Three dimensional finite element simulation was carried out using ABAQUS/Standard finite element
modelling software. The soil layers below the ground water table were modelled using 20-node brick
te s
elements with reduced integration and pore pressure degrees of freedom. Fully drained condition was
assumed in the coarse grained fill layer, embankment fill and the gravel bed due to the generally high
di nu
permeability of these layers compared to others and therefore they were modelled using 20node
brick elements with reduced integration but without pore pressure degrees of freedom. The same
ye a
element type was used to model the piles. The geosynthetic layer was modelled using 8-node
quadratic membrane elements with reduced integration.
op M
Since the embankment is symmetrical along the centreline, only a half of the embankment is
modelled. The foundation soil is taken to be 25 m deep overlying a rigid impermeable stratum. The
C ted
horizontal length of the model is taken to be 78 m so that the boundary effect can be minimised. The
embankment spans in the y direction for 120 m. Therefore, a 6 m wide section with two rows of piles
were selected for the analysis so that both lateral and transverse behaviour of the embankment can
ot p
be evaluated. The displacements in all three directions at the bottom (z=0 plane), are set to zero.
Along the centreline of the embankment (x=0 plane), symmetrical boundary conditions were assigned.
N ce
In the far end of the model (x=78 m plane), displacements along x direction are set to zero.
Symmetrical boundary conditions were assigned for the two vertical planes (y=0 plane and y=6 m
Ac
plane). All these boundaries are considered to be impermeable and pore fluid flow is permitted only
through the bottom surface of the coarse grained fill (z=23.5 m plane) by setting the pore pressure
zero boundary condition on that plane.
The embankment is constructed in nine lifts including the reinforced gravel layer of 0.5 m thickness.
During the first analysis step, all the elements corresponding to the fill are removed and the foundation
soil and piles are brought to the geostatic equilibrium. Then elements corresponding to each layer are
added one by one in each step until the embankment reached its height over a period of 55 days and
then in the final step the already constructed embankment is left for 125 days for consolidation. Figure
3 and 4 show the Three-dimensional model, finite element mesh used in the analysis and the
construction sequence of the embankment respectively.
Int. J. Geomech.
Two Dimensional Finite Element Modelling
Once three dimensional numerical modelling is complete and the model was verified, two dimensional
models were analysed with respect to different plane strain idealizations mentioned in the previous
section. The same embankment geometry with same material properties were used for the analysis.
The soil layers below the ground water table were analysed using 8-node plane strain elements with
reduced integration and pore pressure degrees of freedom at the corner nodes and all the soils which
were assumed to be fully drained (fill layers and gravel layers above and below the geosynthetic) and
piles were modelled using 8-node plane strain elements with reduced integration but without pore
t
pressures. For comparison purposes, the geosynthetic layer was modelled using the same element
ip
type and also using 3-node truss elements as well. The same construction sequence shown in Figure
4 is also adopted for the two dimensional analysis.
d cr
In the first method which is from now on referred to as the equivalent area (EA) method, where the
equivalent area is selected for two dimensional modelling, two separate thicknesses for the pile wall
te s
needs to be calculated. The reason for this is that the pile consist of two different sections, the top
di nu
0.5m is a solid concrete cylinder while the bottom 15.5m is a concrete annulus. Therefore, using
Equation 1, two thicknesses were calculated for the pile wall for the top 0.5m and for the rest of the
pile as shown in Figure 5.
ye a
For the second and third methods (i.e., using normal stiffness and flexural stiffness) the thickness of
op M
the top 0.5m of the pile wall is assumed to be 1m which is same as the pile diameter. The annulus is
converted to 2D as two thin walls having the same annulus thickness of 0.12m connected to the top
C ted
part of the pile as shown in Figure 6. The equivalent elastic modulus for the two pile parts were
calculated using Equations 2 and 3 for each method, respectively. In order to proceed with this
calculation, the elastic modulus of the soft soil is needed and since there are several soil layers
present, the weighted average elastic modulus of all the soft soil layers was taken as the elastic
ot p
modulus of the foundation soil. The second idealization method is referred to as the equivalent normal
N ce
stiffness method (ENS) and the third method is referred to as the equivalent flexural stiffness (EFS)
method for later references.
Ac
In the final method the area replacement ratio is used for the 2D idealization. This method is later
referred as the area replacement ratio (ARR) method. The thickness of the 2D pile wall was assumed
to be 1m throughout the pile length because according to Equation 4 there is no option to select a
different wall thickness. After that, two equivalent elastic modulus values were calculated for the upper
0.5m part of the pile and the lower 15.5m part. Figure 7 shows the details of this idealization method.
Analysis of Results
The results obtained during the analysis are presented in the following sections.
Three Dimensional Numerical Modeling
This section presents the results obtained by the three-dimensional numerical modelling. The
measured values of stresses on piles and surrounding foundation soil, settlements of pile heads and
Int. J. Geomech.
the soil in between them and the variation of excess pore water pressure obtained from the numerical
model are compared with the field measurements.
Load Transfer from the Embankment to Piles and Foundation Soil
During the instrumentation of the embankment, eight earth pressure cells (E1-E8) were installed on
top of the coarse grained fill layer around Pile A and another two (E9 and E10) were installed on top of
the pile head as shown in Figure 2(b).
t
The finite element model results are compared with the measured values of earth pressure in Table 2
ip
at the end of embankment construction. Earth pressure cells E5 and E8 had been damaged during the
embankment construction, therefore the pressure values corresponding to those could not be
d cr
compared.
On top of the soil surface, there is a maximum difference of 48% between computed and measured
te s
earth pressures. On the other hand, the maximum percentage difference between measured and
di nu
computed pressures on top of the pile head is 8%. The total load from the embankment is about 104
kPa and the load on the pile is more than five times greater than that at the end of embankment
construction. According to the computed results the load transferred to the foundation soil is about
ye a
65% of the embankment load. This means that a load transfer is taking place between the
op M
embankment fill to the piles as a result of soil arching. The computed stress concentration ratio for this
study is about 9 after 125 days of consolidation.
C ted
Settlements of Piles and Soil
The arrangement of the surface settlement plates are shown in Figure 1(a). Four settlement plates
ot p
were installed, two on top of pile heads (S1 and S4), and the other two, (S2 and S3) in between two
N ce
piles. S1 and S2 were placed near the embankment shoulder while S3 and S4 were placed closer to
the center of the embankment.
Figure 8 shows the variation of measured and finite element model predicted settlement values at the
Ac
pile heads and the soil surface. The comparison of measured and computed settlement values at the
end of embankment construction are shown in Table 3.
According to the comparison of measured and computed settlements, the finite element model
predicted settlements in the soil surface agree well with the measured settlement values during the
period of embankment construction. The settlements of the piles are slightly over predicted by the
finite element model. This might be due to the interaction between piles and surrounding soils were
not considered during the analysis.
Variation of Pore Water Pressure
During the instrumentation of the embankment, two piezometers were installed at a depth of 4 m (P1)
and 8 m (P2) below the ground surface midway between the second and third piles closer to the
center of the embankment to measure pore water pressures as shown in Figure 1(a). The measured
Int. J. Geomech.
values of pore pressures in P1 and P2 at the end of embankment construction are 11 kPa and 16 kPa
respectively. The computed pore pressure values at these points agree well with the measured values
although the rate of excess pore pressure dissipation is over predicted by the finite element program.
During the consolidation of soft soil, the void ratio is decreased; as a result the permeability of the soil
is also reduced but, this is not taken into account during the analysis due to lack of data in relation to
variation of permeability with void ratio for the site. Therefore the computed rate of excess pore
pressure dissipation is usually larger than that in the field. The measured and computed excess pore
pressure variation is shown in Figure 9.
t
ip
Two Dimensional Numerical Modeling
This section describes the results obtained from the two dimensional numerical modelling. Different
d cr
two dimensional idealizations were adopted in modelling as explained in Sections 1 and 3.3. Results
from each idealization are compared with the three dimensional model results as well as field
te s
measurements. Special attention is paid to the stress transfer from the embankment to piles and soft
di nu
foundation soil, vertical settlements of piles and surrounding soil, variation of excess pore water
pressure, tension developed in the geosynthetic layer and the lateral displacements.
ye a
op M
Load Transfer to the Piles and Soft Soil
The main idea of adding pile supports and geosynthetic reinforcement to an embankment founded on
soft soil is to obtain an effective load transfer. Different factors contribute to this load transfer
C ted
mechanism such as soil arching, stress concentration due to the stiffness difference between piles
and surrounding soil and the membrane action of the geosynthetic layer. In the real three dimensional
nature, soil arches develop both in the lateral and transverse directions which can be described as a
ot p
dome shape. But, when two dimensional models are considered, soil arches can only be developed in
N ce
the lateral direction since pile walls are spanning all the way through the transverse direction.
Therefore, we cannot expect the same load transfer characteristics from a two dimensional model as
from a three dimensional model.
Ac
When two dimensional modelling is carried out, the geosynthetic reinforcement is modelled using both
plane strain elements and truss elements. The differences of these elements will be further discussed
when the geosynthetic tension results are presented. Table 4 shows the comparison of stress on pile
A as shown in Figure 2(a) and the surrounding foundation soil for different models at the end of
embankment construction.
According to the results we can see that out of all the two dimensional models analysed, the
equivalent area method gives the closest values to the three dimensional results as well as the field
measurements. It can be seen that the field measured vertical stress values on the foundation soil are
somewhat lesser than the computed values by both 3D and 2D models. A reason for this can be the
disturbance occurred to the surrounding soils during pile construction. Because, a double wall casing
has been driven temporarily to construct the annulus part of the pile and it was withdrawn as the
casting proceeded. Due to this disturbance the stiffness of the surrounding soil might have decreased
thus reducing their load carrying capacity.
Int. J. Geomech.
Table 5 shows the vertical stresses on the second pile from the toe of the embankment. The second
pile was selected because the last pile was just below the toe and therefore only a very small portion
of embankment load is transferred to that pile. But no field measurements are available to compare
the results for this pile.
The two cases with plane strain elements and truss elements for the geosynthetic layer are giving
almost the same results. Therefore, the way of modelling the geosynthetic layer does not cause a
significant impact on the stresses. The two dimensional idealizations except the equivalent area
method yield considerably low values for the stress on the piles. This might be due to the plan areas of
t
the piles in all these cases are significantly higher than the plan area of the equivalent area method
ip
piles hence, giving a lower stress. We can see that the stresses on the foundation soil are almost
same for all the methods. This is because the stresses at exactly mid points between the piles were
d cr
selected from the finite element model results. Otherwise, if the total stresses around the pile was
selected, the stresses in the foundation soil for the two dimensional methods is less than those for the
te s
three dimensional model. The reason for that is the piles in two dimensional models act as continuous
di nu
walls making the load transferred to the foundation soil lesser than the actual case where they are not
continuous.
ye a
Settlements of Piles and Soft Soil
op M
This section explains the settlements in the foundation soil and piles. For the comparison purposes,
the settlement values corresponding to settlement plates S3 and S4 are selected. Settlement plate S3
C ted
represents the middle point on the foundation soil surface between first and second piles from the
center of the embankment as shown in Figure 2(a) and S4 is located on the first pile from the
centerline. Vertical settlements at these two points are computed by both three dimensional and two
ot p
dimensional models and are shown in Figures 10 and 11.

N ce
According to Figure 10 the settlement of the pile head is closely predicted by all two dimensional
models and the three dimensional model. The equivalent area method slightly over predicts the
settlements and the other three methods slightly under predict when compared with the three
Ac
dimensional model. However, those three methods have given closer values to the field
measurements for the pile head displacement. Figure 11 presents the vertical settlement of the
foundation soil between the first two piles from the center of the embankment. According to the
results, the ENS, EFS and ARR methods largely under predict the settlements in the foundation soil
layer. This is because the thickness of the pile wall was assumed to be the diameter of the pile for all
these three methods. This makes the plan area of the foundation soil to decrease so that the volume
of the embankment fill below the soil arches which will stand on this foundation soil will also reduce.
Therefore the total load transferred to the foundation soil reduces thus reducing the settlements.
It is clear that out of all the two dimensional methods, the EA method yields the closest values to the
three dimensional model results as well as to the field measurements. The total stress transferred to
the foundation soil for this method is still less than that for the three dimensional case, because the
piles are assumed as walls. But since the thickness of the wall is much less than the pile diameter we
Int. J. Geomech.
can assume that this effect cancels out to some extent. Therefore, it is clear that even for the
settlement predictions, EA method gives the closest results.
Similar to the previous section, results based on plane strain elements and truss elements for the
geosynthetic layer are compared for the settlements as well. Figure 12 shows the variation of
settlements (S3). Results for the other settlement plate are omitted because the patterns are the
same. According to this figure, the results show the same settlement variation irrespective of the
element type used.
t
ip
Excess Pore Pressure Variation
Two piezometers were installed inside the foundation soil layers at 4m and 8m depths as described in
d cr
the earlier sections. They measure the variation of piezometric level with time. The excess pore water
pressures can then be calculated using these pizometric levels. For the comparison purpose, only the
te s
pore pressure variation in the piezometer P2 is selected because the comparison results are similar
di nu
for both of them. Figure 13 shows the variation of excess pore water pressure at a depth of 8m below
the foundation soil surface and 6m from the center of the embankment.
When the results are compared, a similarity can be seen like in the previous comparisons. The three
ye a
dimensional model predicts closer results to the actual measured values of excess pore water
op M
pressure and among the two dimensional models, the EA method predicts the closest excess pore
pressure variation to the actual case and three dimensional model. All the other two dimensional
models give low excess pore pressure values. This can be due to the lower stress transferred to the
C ted
foundation soil during the embankment construction. Since the permeability reduction of the soft soil
with the decrease of void ratio during consolidation is not considered in any of these finite element
simulations, excess pore water pressure dissipates much quicker than in the actual field condition. It
ot p
can be observed that after the end of the monitoring period, about 70% consolidation was measured in
N ce
the field but in the three dimensional model and the EA method about 87% consolidation can be
observed. In all the other methods the degree of consolidation is even higher at a value of around
93%.
Ac
Excess pore water pressures are also compared for the two different element types used for the
geosynthetic layer. Results are shown in Figure 14. From the results it can be seen that the use of
these two element types makes no significant difference to the excess pore pressure variation.
Tension in the Geosynthetic Layer
The tension developed in the geosynthetic layer will be discussed in this section. Unfortunately there
are no field data available to verify the accuracy of the computed tensile force in the geosynthetic
layer. Therefore, results from the three dimensional model are compared with two dimensional model
results.
During the construction of the embankment, the geosynthetic layer is sandwiched between two gravel
layers in order to prevent damage to that due to the pile edges and movement of machines etc. The
interaction between the geosynthetic and gravel was taken into account during the analysis. A surface
Int. J. Geomech.
to surface contact was assigned in such a way that the frictional movement is allowed only parallel to
the interface. The interface friction angle was assumed to be the same as the friction angle of gravel.
Since the thickness of the geosynthetic layer was not specified in the case study, a general value of
0.02m was assumed considering the thickness of geosynthetic layers typically used in embankments.
The geosynthetic layer is analysed using two element types when the two dimensional modelling is
carried out. The first one is the 8-node plane strain element (CPE8R) and the second one is the 3-
node truss element (T2D3). In the real world the geosynthetic layer behaves as a tensioned
membrane. Therefore, a suitable representation is required when modelling this in the two-
t
dimensional model. This problem does not arise in the 3D modelling because ABAQUS has a
ip
membrane element for the three dimensional models. The plane strain element used in the 2D models
can have both vertical and horizontal stresses and it has a bending stiffness as well as ability to resist
d cr
compressive stresses in the axial direction, which is not a realistic representation of the actual
condition. On the other hand, the truss element will carry only axial loads and it does not have a
te s
bending stiffness. Also it can be allowed to carry only tensile forces in the axial direction. But in a
di nu
situation where it is required to compute the vertical stresses acting on the top and bottom surfaces of
the geosynthetic layer, plane strain elements are more appropriate than truss elements.
Table 6 shows the comparison of the tension in the geosynthetic layer for different models. For this
ye a
comparison, the maximum tension in the geosynthetic layer above pile A was selected. The maximum
op M
tension is generated near the edge of the pile where the sharpest change in the settlement occurs.
This is because the tension in the geosynthetic layer is the product of the geosynthetic strain and the
tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic layer. The tensile stiffness is kept at a constant value throughout
C ted
this study. But the strain in the geosynthetic layer is high when the differential settlements are higher.
Therefore, at pile edges, where the differential settlements are higher, the geosynthetic strain is higher
and as a result the tension increases.
ot p
According to the results presented in Table 6, the tension in the geosynthetic layer in the three
N ce
dimensional model above pile A at the end of embankment construction is 13 kN/m. It should also be
noted that the assumed value of the thickness of the geosynthetic layer also has a significant effect on
the tension developed in the geosynthetic layer but no verification with the field data can be carried out
Ac
due to the absence of such data. However, the comparisons with the two dimensional models can still
be carried out since the main focus of this study is to obtain the best two dimensional idealization
method.
By looking at the results, it is clear that EA method and EAT method give the closest tension values to
the three dimensional case. Out of these two methods, EAT method yields the closest value.
Therefore, modelling the geosynthetic reinforcement layers using truss elements can give better
results for the geosynthetic tension. All the other two dimensional idealization methods gave
significantly lower values for the geosynthetic tension. This can be due to the low settlement values
observed in these methods. The strain in the geosynthetic layer is low and therefore, the tension is
also low.
Int. J. Geomech.
Lateral Displacements
Figure 15 shows the variation of the lateral displacement at 1.5m away from the toe of the
embankment at the end of construction. An inclinometer (I1) was installed 1.5 m away from the toe of
the embankment while the instrumentation was carried out as shown in Figure 2(a). The shapes of the
lateral displacement profiles are similar in both two and three dimensional models and the field
measurements. However, the numerical models significantly over predict the magnitude of lateral
displacement. The reason for this could be the use of isotropic homogeneous soil models and soil
parameters during finite element modelling in order to simulate what are anisotropic and non
t
homogeneous soils in the field.
ip
Figures 16 and 17 show the variation of lateral displacement of a pile close to the centre of the
embankment and close to the toe of the embankment respectively. There are no field measurements
d cr
to compare the displacement values. However, the equivalent area methods give the closest values to
the three dimensional model results. Out of the two cases of equivalent area method, the lateral
te s
displacements observed by using the truss element for the geosynthetic layer (EAT) have a larger
di nu
displacement values than for the one using plane strain elements (EA) in the upper region of the pile.
ye a
Conclusions
op M
An actual geosynthetic reinforced pile-supported embankment was analysed in this study using both
two dimensional and three dimensional finite element modelling. Two dimensional models are
analysed using different plane strain idealizations of piles and the results are compared with the three-
C ted
dimensional model results and field measurements. According to the results it is clear that the three-
dimensional model gives the closest results to the actual field measurements.
On the other hand, out of all the two-dimensional idealizations adopted, the EA method yields the
ot p
closest results to the three-dimensional model results and field measurements based on vertical
N ce
stresses on piles and foundation soil, vertical settlements of the foundation soil and excess pore water
pressure variation.
Ac
Out of the other idealization methods the ARR method, EFS method and ENS method respectively
give the next closer results for settlements in the foundation soil and excess pore pressure variation.
The second closest prediction for vertical stresses on the piles and foundation soil is given by ARR
method and the other two methods (ENS and EFS methods) predict similar but lower values.
Furthermore, using truss elements for the geosynthetic layer does not make any significant change to
the vertical stresses, settlements or excess pore pressure distribution. However, the tension in the
geosynthetic layer is much closer to the three dimensional model results when truss elements are
used. Therefore, the equivalent area method used with the truss element for the geosynthetic
reinforcement layer can be considered as the most appropriate two-dimensional idealization method
based on this study.
Int. J. Geomech.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this project provided by the Australian
Research Council and Coffey Geotechnics under the Linkage grant, LP0990581, and the University of
Western Sydney for providing an International Postgraduate Research Scholarship for the first author.
References
1. Bergado, D.T. and Long, P.V. (1994). Numerical analysis of embankment on subsiding ground
t
improved by vertical drains and granular piles. Proceedings of the XIII International
ip
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, Morgantown, WV, USA,
pp.1361-1366.
d cr
2. Chen, R. P., Xu, Z. Z., Chen, Y. M., Ling, D. S. and Zhu, B. (2010). Field tests on pile-
te s
supported embankments over soft ground, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 136(6), pp.777-785.
3.
di nu
Collin, J.G. (2004). Column supported embankment design considerations. In: Proceedings of
the 52nd Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
ye a
Minnesota, pp. 5178.
op M
4. Deb, D., Basudhar,P.K., and Chandra,S. (2007). Generalized Model for Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil with Stone Columns, International Journal of Geomechanics,
Vol. 7, pp.266-276.
C ted
5. Eskisar, T., Otani, J. and Hironaka, J. (2012). Visualization of soil arching on reinforced
embankment with rigid pile foundation using X-ray CT, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol
32, pp. 44-54.
6. FHWA-RC-BAL-04-0015, Pile supported embankments for accelerated construction, FHWA
ot p
Publication, US Department of Transportation.

N ce
7. Han, J., Bhandari, A., and Wang, F. (2012). DEM Analysis of Stresses and Deformations of
Geogrid-Reinforced Embankments over Piles, International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 12,
pp. 340-350.
Ac
8. Han, J., Collin, J. G. and Huang, J. (2004). Recent development of geosynthetic-reinforced

th
column-supported embankment. The 55 Highway Geology Symposium, Kansas City,
Missouri, pp. 299-321.
9. Han, J. and Gabr, M.A. (2002). Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and

pilesupported earth platforms over soft soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 128 (1), pp. 4453.
10. Han, J., and Wayne, M. H. (2000). Pile-soil-interactions in geosynthetic reinforced

platform/piled embankments over soft soil. Rep. No. 000777, Presentation and CD-Print at
79th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington, D.C. 27.
11. Hewlett, W.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1988). Analysis of piled embankments. Ground
Engineering 21 (3), pp.1218.
Int. J. Geomech.
12. Hong, W. P., Hong, S. and Song, J. S. (2011). Load Transfer by Punching Shear in Pile-
Supported Embankments on Soft Grounds, Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 29(4),
pp.279-29.
13. Huang, J. and Han, J. (2009). 3D coupled mechanical and hydraulic modelling of a
geosynthetic-reinforced deep mixed column-supported embankment, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol 27, pp.272-280.
14. Huang, J., Han, J. and Oztoprak, S. (2009). Coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of
geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135, No. 8, pp.10111021.
t
ip
15. Jenck, O., Dias, D. and Kastner, R. (2009). Three-dimensional numerical modelling of a piled
embankment, International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 9, pp.102-112.
d cr
16. Li, Y., Aubeny, C. and Briaud, J. L. (2003). Geosynthetic reinforced pile supported (GRPS)
embankments; Literature review, Design rules, Case histories, Numerical simulations, Report
te s
to the Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., USA.
17.
di nu
Liu, H. L., Ng, C. W. W. and Fei, K. (2007). Performance of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-
supported highway embankment over soft clay: Case study, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(12), pp.1483-1493.
ye a
18. Low, B.K., Tang, S.K. and Choa, V. (1994). Arching in piled embankments. Journal of
op M
Geotechnical Engineering 120 (11), pp.19171938.
19. Magnan, J.P. (1994). Methods to reduce the settlement of embankments on soft clay: a
C ted
review. In: Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication, 40, pp. 7791.
th
20. Mitchell, J. K. (1981). State of the Art Soil Improvement. Proceedings of the 10 ICSMFE.
ot p
Stockholm, Vol.4, pp. 509-565.

N ce
21. Shen, S.L., Chai, J.C., Hong, Z.S. and Cai, F.X. (2005). Analysis of field performance of
embankments on soft clay deposit with and without PVD-improvement. Geosynthetics and
Geomembranes. Vol.23. no. 6. pp. 463485.
Ac
22. Stewart, D.P., Jewell, R.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1993). Numerical Modelling of bridge
abutments on soft ground. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 15, pp. 21-46.
23. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil Mechanics. New York, Wiley.
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJXUH&DSWLRQVOLVW
List of Figures
Figure 1. Different 2D idealization methods
Figure 2. (a) Geometric parameters of the instrumented embankment with the soil profile; (b)
Earth pressure cells around the pile
Figure 3. (a) Three dimensional model; (b) Finite element mesh

Figure 4. Construction sequence of the embankment
t
ip
Figure 5. Details for EA idealization method
Figure 6. Details for ENS and EFS idealization methods
d cr
Figure 7. Details for ARR idealization method
te s
Figure 8. Measured and computed settlements (a) at pile heads; (b) at soil surface
di nu
Figure 9. Measured and computed excess pore pressure variation
Figure 10. Settlement at pile head

ye a
Figure 11. Settlement of foundation soil between piles
op M
Figure 12. Settlements with two element types for the geosynthetic layer
Figure 13. Excess pore pressure variation with time

C ted
Figure 14. Excess pore pressure variation with two element types for the geosynthetic layer
against time
Figure 15. Lateral displacement with depth

ot p
Figure 16. Lateral displacement of the pile close to the centre of the embankment
N ce
Figure 17. Lateral displacement of the pile close to the toe of the embankment
Ac
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
(a)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. Different 2D idealization methods
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) Geometric parameters of the instrumented embankment with the soil profile; (b) Earth
pressure cells around the pile
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
5.6 m
25 m
z
78 m
x
y
6m
(a)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
(b)
Figure 3. (a) Three dimensional model; (b) Finite element mesh
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
5
4
Embankment Height (m)
Actual
3
FEM Simulated
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (Days)
Figure 4. Construction sequence of the embankment
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Figure 5. Details for EA idealization method
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Figure 6. Details for ENS and EFS idealization methods
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Figure 7. Details for ARR idealization method
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Time (Days)
1 10 100 1000
0
S1 (measured)
S1 (computed)
5
S4 (measured)
S4 (computed)
Settlement (mm)
10
15
20
25
(a)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
Time (Days)
1 10 100 1000
0
S2 (measured)
10
S2 (computed)
20
S3 (measured)
30
Settlement (mm)
S3 (computed)
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(b)
Figure 8. Measured and computed settlements (a) at pile heads; (b) at soil surface
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
18
16
Excess pore water pressure (kPa)
14
P1 (measured)
12
P2 (measured)
10
P1 (computed)
8
P2 (computed)
6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (Days)
Figure 9. Measured and computed excess pore pressure variation
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Time (Days)
1 10 100 1000
0
S4 (Measured)
10
Settlement (mm)
S4 (3D)
15
EA
ENS
20
EFS
25
ARR
30
Figure 10. Settlement at pile head
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Time (Days)
1 10 100 1000
0
10
20
S3 (Measured)
30
S3 (3D)
Settlement (mm)
40
EA
50
ENS
60
EFS
70
ARR
80
90
100
Figure 11. Settlement of foundation soil between piles
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Time (Days)
1 10 100 1000
0
S3 (Measured)
10
S3 (3D)
20
EA
30
ENS
Settlement (mm)
40
EFS
50
ARR
60
EA Truss
70
ENS Truss
80
EFS Truss
90
ARR Truss
100
Figure 12. Settlements with two element types for the geosynthetic layer
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
18
P2 (Measured)
16
14
P2 (3D)
12
EA
10
ENS
8
6 EFS
4
ARR
2
0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (Days)
Figure 13. Excess pore pressure variation with time
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
18
P2 (Measured)
16
P2 (3D)
14
EA
12
ENS
10
EFS
8
ARR
6
EA Truss
4
ENS Truss
2 EFS Truss
0 ARR Truss
0 50 100 150 200
Time (Days)
Figure 14. Excess pore pressure variation with two element types for the geosynthetic layer against time
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
Lateral Displacement (mm)

0 10 20 30 40
0
Accepted Manuscript
10
Not Copyedited
Depth (m)
Measured
3D
15 EA
ENS
EFS
ARR
20
EA Truss
ENS Truss
EFS Truss
ARR Truss
25
Figure 15. Lateral displacement with depth
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0
Accepted Manuscript
6
Not Copyedited
Depth (m)
3D
8
EA
ENS
10
EFS
ARR
12
EA Truss
ENS Truss
14
EFS Truss
ARR Truss
16
Figure 16. Lateral displacement of the pile close to the centre of the embankment
Int. J. Geomech.
)LJSGI
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Accepted Manuscript
6
Not Copyedited
Depth (m)
3D
8
EA
ENS
10
EFS
ARR
12
EA Truss
ENS Truss
14
EFS Truss
ARR Truss
16
Figure 17. Lateral displacement of the pile close to the toe of the embankment
Int. J. Geomech.
7DEOHVGRF[
Tables
Table 1. Material properties used in the finite element simulations.
Material Parameters
E = 7 MPa, c = 15 kPa, = 280, = 00, = 0.3,

Coarse grained fill
= 20 kN/m3
= 0.06, = 0.012, M = 1.2, e1= 0.87, = 0.35,

Silty clay
k = 4.32x10-4 m/day, = 20 kN/m3
= 0.15, = 0.03, M = 0.95, e1= 1.79, = 0.4,

Soft silty clay
k = 4.32x10-4 m/day, = 17 kN/m3
= 0.05, = 0.01, M = 1.1, e1= 0.88, = 0.35,

Medium silty clay
k = 4.32x10-4 m/day, = 20.5 kN/m3
= 0.03, = 0.005, M = 0.28, e1= 0.97, = 0.35,

Sandy silt
k = 4.32x10-3 m/day, = 20 kN/m3
E = 20 MPa, c = 10 kPa, = 300, = 00, = 0.3,

Embankment fill
= 18.5 kN/m3
E = 20 MPa, c = 10 kPa, = 400, = 00, = 0.3,

Gravel bed
= 18.5 kN/m3
Pile E = 20 GPa, = 0.2
Geosynthetic J =Et = 1180 kN/m, = 0.3
J Stiffness of the geosynthetic, t thickness of the geosynthetic, unit weight of soil
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Int. J. Geomech.
Table 2. Comparison of Measured and Computed Pressure Values.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10
Measured (kPa) 31.2 38.7 36.7 31.4 - 47.9 56.0 - 583.6 552.2
Computed (kPa) 56 49.5 57 60.5 65 56 49.5 57 603 603
Difference (%) 44 22 35 48 - 14 12 - 3 8
Table 3. Comparison of Measured and Computed Settlement Values.
S1 S2 S3 S4
Measured (mm) 8 42 55 12
Accepted Manuscript
Computed (mm) 10.7 45.6 58 16.9
Table 4. Comparison of Measured and Computed Stresses for pile A.
Not Copyedited
Stress on Stress on
Pile A Surrounding Soil Stress
Model Concentration
(Average) (Average)
Ratio (SCR)
(kPa) (kPa)
Field Measured 567.9 40.31 14
Three Dimensional (3D) 603 56.3 10.7
Equivalent Area (EA) 598 51.8 11.5

Plane Strain Elements
for the Geosynthetic
Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENS) 368 50.1 7.3

layer
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFS) 358 50.2 7.1
Area Replacement Ratio (ARR) 366 50.5 7.2
Equivalent Area (EAT) 581 52 11.1

Truss Elements for the
Geosynthetic layer
Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENST) 368 50.9 7.2
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFST) 357 51 7
Area Replacement Ratio (ARRT) 364 51.5 7
Int. J. Geomech.
Table 5. Comparison of Measured and Computed Stresses for the second pile from the toe.
Stress on Stress on
Pile Surrounding Soil Stress
Model Concentration
(Average) (Average)
Ratio (SCR)
(kPa) (kPa)
Three Dimensional (3D) 210 28.7 7.31
Equivalent Area (EA) 220.9 25.7 8.59


Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENS) 170.8 25.4 6.72

layer
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFS) 164.5 25.27 6.5
Area Replacement Ratio (ARR) 176.1 25.7 6.85
Equivalent Area (EAT) 217.1 25.5 8.51

Accepted Manuscript
Geosynthetic layer
Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENST) 165.1 25.2 6.55
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFST) 160.9 25.1 6.41
Not Copyedited
Area Replacement Ratio (ARRT) 187.4 25.8 7.26
Table 6. Comparison of Geosynthetic tension values.
Geosynthetic Tension
Model
(kN/m)
Three Dimensional (3D) 13
Equivalent Area (EA) 9.2

Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENS) 2.04

layer
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFS) 2.12
Area Replacement Ratio (ARR) 1.9
Equivalent Area (EAT) 10.2

Geosynthetic layer
Equivalent Normal Stiffness (ENST) 2.8
Equivalent Flexural Stiffness (EFST) 2.84
Area Replacement Ratio (ARRT) 2.68
Int. J. Geomech.

A Comparisson of Different Two Dimensional Idealization For Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

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

A Comparisson of Different Two Dimensional Idealization For Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Geomechanics.

Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted October 12, 2012;

A Comparison of Different Two Dimensional Idealizations for a

dimensional models are discussed.

Keywords: pile-supported embankment, geosynthetic reinforcement, three-dimensional modelling

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

A geosynthetic reinforced pile supported embankment is a three dimensional problem. Therefore, in

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

where, Aw is the plan area of pile wall.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Site Conditions and Geometry of the Embankment

Material Model and Parameters

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Two Dimensional Finite Element Modelling

Three Dimensional Numerical Modeling

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Load Transfer from the Embankment to Piles and Foundation Soil

the pile head as shown in Figure 2(b).

Settlements of Piles and Soil

Variation of Pore Water Pressure

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Load Transfer to the Piles and Soft Soil

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

dimensional models and are shown in Figures 10 and 11.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Tension in the Geosynthetic Layer

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Publication, US Department of Transportation.

8. Han, J., Collin, J. G. and Huang, J. (2004). Recent development of geosynthetic-reinforced

9. Han, J. and Gabr, M.A. (2002). Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and

10. Han, J., and Wayne, M. H. (2000). Pile-soil-interactions in geosynthetic reinforced

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135, No. 8, pp.10111021.

Geotechnical Engineering 120 (11), pp.19171938.

Stockholm, Vol.4, pp. 509-565.

23. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil Mechanics. New York, Wiley.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 1. Different 2D idealization methods

Earth pressure cells around the pile

Figure 3. (a) Three dimensional model; (b) Finite element mesh

Figure 4. Construction sequence of the embankment

Figure 6. Details for ENS and EFS idealization methods

Figure 10. Settlement at pile head

Figure 13. Excess pore pressure variation with time

Figure 15. Lateral displacement with depth

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 1. Different 2D idealization methods

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 3. (a) Three dimensional model; (b) Finite element mesh

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 4. Construction sequence of the embankment

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 5. Details for EA idealization method

Figure 6. Details for ENS and EFS idealization methods

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Figure 7. Details for ARR idealization method

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers