Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of an investigation into the effect of foundation
yielding on the performance of two-tiered geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls using a
calibrated plane-strain finite element model. Variables considered in this study include the offset
distance and reinforcement distribution. The results indicate among other things that an unexpected
foundation yielding may affect both the internal and external stability of the lower tier owing to
the absence of toe resistance. Also revealed is the finding that the upper-tier reinforcement length
has a significant influence on the lower-tier lateral deformation. Design implications and findings
from this study are discussed.
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
182 Yoo and Song
qeq 5 f(D)
H2
D
H1 á
H1
á
L1
L1
ö
D D < H1 tan ì45° 2 ü ói 5 ãH2
î 2þ
H2
D < H1 tan(90° 2 ö) ói 5 0
ói ö
ö
ãH2 H1 tanì45° 2 ü , D < H1 tan(90° 2 ö)
æi æ1 î 2þ
ój òj 2 ò 1
H1 óf 5 ò 2 ò ãH2
æj ãH2 2 1
óf
ö
where: ò1 5 D tanö, ò2 5 D tanì45° 2 ü
î 2þ
ö
æ2 45° 1
2
Figure 2. Calculation model for vertical stress increase due to upper tier (FHWA)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 183
4.4 m
Concrete masonry facing
blocks 200 mm 3 300 mm 3 300 mm
(height 3 width 3 length) 3.6 m
Length 5 variable
H2 5 5 m
2.8 m
Elevations
2.0 m above exposed
level
D 5 2.5 m
1.2 m
0.6 m
0.4 m
0.0 m
4.6 m
3.8 m Geogrid
J 5 1000 kN/m
Length 5 variable
H1 5 5 m
3.0 m
Elevations
2.4 m above exposed
level
1.8 m
1.2 m
0.6 m
0.4 m
20.2 m
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
184 Yoo and Song
2.5H
compacted backfill (Yoo 2004), an internal friction angle
of ¼ 328 with no cohesion was assumed for the
H2 5 5 m
reinforced and retained soils.
H 5 10.4 m
A foundation condition encountered in an actual GR-
SRW construction site (Yoo 2004) was assumed for the
H1 5 5.4 m
yielding foundation case, in which a 4.0 m thick alluvial
sand deposit with an average SPT blow count (N) of 15 is
followed by a slightly weathered granite rock stratum.
Based on local experience, and from the average SPT
blow count N, the shear strength parameters for the
foundation soil were estimated as being ¼ 328. The
estimation of the internal friction angle is based on the
SPT blow count N value using the relationship by Peck et (a)
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 185
and Bathurst 2006) conducted by the authors indicated vertical and seated on a rigid foundation (Figure 5). The
that the introduction of interface elements between the wall facing was constructed using solid masonry concrete
blocks has an insignificant effect on the wall performance blocks 300 mm wide by 150 mm high by 200 mm long. A
for the reported block interface properties (Hatami and clean, uniform size, rounded beach sand (SP) with D50 ¼
Bathurst 2006). In terms of modelling the construction 0.34 mm, coefficient of curvature Cc ¼ 3.35 and coeffi-
sequence, the initial geostatic stress condition in the cient of uniformity Cu ¼ 1.09 was used as backfill. Upon
foundation was first created based on the unit weight and completion of the wall construction, a uniform surcharge
effective coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0 ¼ load was applied using a system of airbags placed across
0.45) for the foundation soil. The detailed construction the entire soil surface. Among the different test results
sequence was then carefully simulated by adding soil reported by Hatami and Bathurst (2006), the results of the
layers, 0.2 m thick each, blocks, and the reinforcement at control wall, reinforced with six layers of a weak biaxial
designated steps. Note that the addition of respective polypropylene (PP) geogrid reinforcement having an initial
elements for soil layers and blocks automatically turns on tangential stiffness J0 ¼ 115 kN/m, were used in this
their self-weights. The non-linear analysis of wall con- study. In this wall, the 2.52 m long reinforcement layers
struction was performed in sufficiently small increments were placed at a vertical spacing of 0.6 m. Details of the
to ensure numerical stability of the solution. RMC test wall and instrumentation are reported by Hatami
and Bathurst (2006).
4.2. Verification The RMC wall was analysed in this study based on the
The finite element modelling approach adopted in this modelling approach given in the previous section using
study was validated against the measured results of the the hyperbolic model implemented in ABAQUS in this
Royal Military College (RMC) test wall 3.6 m high study. The same modelling procedure as reported by
(Hatami and Bathurst 2006). The RMC wall is a modular Hatami and Bathurst (2006) was adopted, including
block wall with a target facing batter of 88 from the modelling of the compaction effect by applying a uniform
Modular
0.3 m
blocks
Backfill
3.6
Retained soil
3.3 6
ù 5 8°
Reinforcement layer
5
Wall height above base (m)
2.7
2.1 4
Reinforced soil 3.6 m
1.5 3
0.6 m
0.9 2
0.3 1
0
Concrete foundation
2.52 m
5.95 m
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of RMC wall (from Hatami and Bathurst 2005)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
186 Yoo and Song
4.0
vertical pressure equal to 8 kPa to the entire surface of
each new soil layer. Thin layers of interface elements were
placed between the facing blocks, as in Hatami and 3.5 q 5 40 q 5 60 q 5 70 kPa
Bathurst (2006), although no significant effect of the
interface modelling of the block interaction was apparent.
The same hyperbolic parameters for the backfill soil and 3.0
Elevation (m)
with strain-dependent tangent tensile stiffness in their
study, whereas a linear elastic behaviour with a constant 2.0
tensile stiffness of J ¼ 100 kN/M was assumed in this
study. No significant effect on the results was evident, as
1.5
the axial tensile stiffness varies only in the range J
115–90 kN/m over the range of strains in the reinforce-
Predicted
ment measured during the test. 1.0
Figures 6a and 6b compare the predicted results from Measured*
this study with the measured data for the wall displace- (Hatami & Bathurst, 2006)
ment and the reinforcement strains, respectively, at se- 0.5
lected load levels. Excellent agreement between the two *Average value
sets of data is seen in Figure 6a in terms of the wall 0
displacements. Although there seem to be some discrepan- 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
cies between the predicted and the measured reinforce- (a)
ment strain distributions in Figure 6b, especially in the
Measured Predicted
region immediately behind the wall facing, the predicted 1.0
results generally tend to capture the range of measured Layer 6
0.5
strains well. 0
As illustrated, the predicted wall performance was in 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
reasonable agreement with the measured performance, 1.5
1.0 Layer 5
which suggests that the numerical modelling approach 0.5
adopted in this study can simulate the geosynthetic- 0
reinforced modular block wall behaviour. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5
Reinforcement strain (%)
1.0 Layer 4
0.5
0
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0
5.1. General observations Layer 3
0.5
The results of the FE analyses for the baseline case (D ¼
0
0.25H) are compared with those for the otherwise rigid 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
foundation case. Figures 7–12 illustrate the wall perform- 1.0
Layer 2
ance in terms of lateral wall deformation, maximum 0.5
reinforcement forces, and distribution of shear stress ratio. 0
As can be seen in Figure 7, the effect of foundation 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0
yielding is to increase the lateral wall deformation in both Layer 1
0.5
tiers. In fact, the foundation yielding tends to cause an
0
approximately 80% increase in the lateral wall deforma-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
tion of the lower tier, mostly through translational-type Distance from front of wall (m)
movement. Such a trend is no doubt a direct consequence (b)
of the considerable horizontal displacement in addition to
the vertical settlement at the foundation level due primar- Figure 6. Comparison between predicted and measured
ily to the absence of the toe resistance, as shown in the RMC test results: (a) wall displacement; (b) reinforcement
strain
contour plots in Figure 8. At the completion of wall
construction, the maximum horizontal displacement at the
foundation level is approximately 80% larger than that for forced soil block. Note that the lateral deformation within
the vertical settlement, i.e. 73 mm as against 44 mm, the reinforced soil block, h,int , is obtained by simply
causing the wall to rotate about its toe. subtracting h,ext from h,face (Ho 1993), and therefore
The effect of foundation yielding on the wall deforma- represents, to a large extent, average lateral deformation
tion is better illustrated in Figure 9 in terms of the sources within the reinforced soil block. As seen in Figure 9a for
of lateral deformation at the wall face (h,face ), i.e. lateral the lower tier, the foundation yielding tends to increase
deformation within (h,int ) and behind (h,ext ) the rein- the lateral deformation at the wall face through increases
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 187
5
layers. Further inspection of Figure 11, which shows the
maximum reinforcement force distribution, reveals that
4
the pattern of increase is more or less uniform up to the
bottom half layers, after which the increase then gradually
Wall height, H (m)
U, U1
0
29.1 3 1023
21.8 3 1022
22.7 3 1022
23.6 3 1022
24.6 3 1022
25.5 3 1022
26.4 3 1022
27.3 3 1022
(a)
U, U2
12.0 3 1022
11.2 3 1022
13.9 3 1023
24.1 3 1023
21.2 3 1022
22.0 3 1022
22.8 3 1022
23.6 3 1022
24.4 3 1022
(b)
Figure 8. Contour plots of (a) horizontal and (b) vertical displacements of foundation (displacement values are in metres)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
188 Yoo and Song
5 5
4 4
5 5
4 4
3 D 5 0.25H 3 D 5 0.25H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Wall Behind reinf. 2 Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)
Figure 9. Comparison of lateral deformation between yielding and rigid foundation cases: (a) lower tier; (b) upper tier
tiered GR-SRWs constructed on an incompetent founda- r is the internal friction angle of backfill soil, and each
tion. tier is designed as a single wall assuming no interaction.
In short, the results presented above strongly suggest Although the minimum required reinforcement lengths
that an unanticipated foundation yielding can increase the vary according to the above design categories, the same
degree of interaction between the upper and lower tiers, reinforcement lengths, i.e. UL ¼ 0.7H1 (H1 ¼ upper-tier
thus resulting in increased lateral wall deformation as well height) and LL ¼ 0.6H were adopted for all cases to allow
as reinforcement tensile forces, especially in the lower tier. for direct comparison between them.
Although it has been shown that the current design Figures 13 and 14 present the lateral wall deformation
methodology can be conservative for normal working profiles for the upper and lower tiers for D ¼ 0.05H and
conditions of GR-SRWs (Allen and Bathurst 2002), this 0.5H. Those for D ¼ 0.25H have already been given in
may not be true for tiered GR-SRWs constructed on a Figure 9. For the lower tier shown in Figure 13, it can be
yielding foundation, as the foundation yielding signifi- seen that the effect of foundation yielding is to increase
cantly affects both the internal and external stability, the lateral deformation both within and behind the
especially for the lower tier. reinforced soil block for all levels of D, with the increase
being more pronounced for cases with smaller offset
5.2. Effect of foundation yielding on walls with distance D, thus suggesting that the foundation yielding
different offset distances affects both the internal and external stability for all levels
The effect of foundation yielding on walls with different of D analysed.
offset distances was examined by analysing the cases with The lateral deformation at the wall face for the upper
D ¼ 0.05H, 0.25H, 0.5H and 1.0H. According to the tier illustrated in Figure 14 also seems to increase in the
FHWA design approach, the case with D ¼ 0.05H is event of foundation yielding for all levels of D. However,
designed as a single wall with a height H ¼ H1 + H2 . For the increase appears to be associated primarily with the
cases with the intermediate offset distances D ¼ 0.25H increases in lateral deformation behind the reinforced soil
and 0.5H, the effect of the upper tier on the lower tier is block, suggesting that the upper-tier lateral deformation
taken into consideration in the form of an equivalent increases mainly through a rigid body translational-type
surcharge, the magnitude of which is determined based on movement of the reinforced soil block when subject to
the offset distance D. A simple design rule is that the foundation yielding. Therefore, in view of the upper-tier
smaller D is, the greater is the effect of the upper tier on stability, the foundation yielding is relevant only for the
the external and internal stability calculations for the external stability for all levels of D considered.
lower tier, i.e. smaller factors of safety. For the case of D The lateral deformations at the wall face, as a percent-
¼ 1.0H, on the other hand, the offset distance is greater age of the total wall height (H), are shown in Figure 15
than H2 tan(90 r ), where H2 is the lower-tier height and for the rigid and yielding foundation cases. One important
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 189
30
Layer 8
25
0
30
Layer 7
25
0
30 Layer 6
25
Reinforcement force (kN/m)
0
30 Layer 5
25
0
30 Layer 4
25
0
30
Layer 3 (a)
25
0
30 Layer 2 SSR
25
0 0.90.95
30 Layer 1
25 0.951.0
0
0 2 4 6
Distance from wall facing (m)
(a)
Yielding foundation
Rigid foundation (b)
30
25
Figure 12. Comparison of shear stress ratio (SSR) distri-
0
30 bution between (a) rigid and (b) yielding foundation cases
25
0
30
Reinforcement force (kN/m)
3
D 5 0.25H
¼ 0.25H and 0.5H, the values of Tmax obtained from the
2 LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H FE analyses slightly exceed those based on the FHWA
Lower Upper design approach for yielding foundation cases, especially
tier tier in the upper one-third layers, suggesting that the FHWA
1
Yielding design approach may not be on the safe side in the
0 Rigid reinforcement force calculation in the event of foundation
yielding. Third, foundation yielding has essentially no
0 20 40 60 80 effect on the upper-tier reinforcement force for all levels
Reinforcement force (kN/m) of D, as no variation is seen between the yielding and rigid
foundation cases.
Figure 11. Reinforcement tensile forces The effect of foundation yielding on the internal
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
190 Yoo and Song
5 5
4 4
5 5
4 4
Wall height, H (m)
Figure 13. Effect of foundation yielding for cases with various offset distances (lower tier): (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.5H
5 5
Wall Behind reinf.
face soil block
4 Yielding 4
Wall height, H (m)
Rigid
3 3
D 5 0.05H D 5 0.05H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 2
Within reinf.
soil block
1 1 Yielding
Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)
5 5
4 4
Wall height, H (m)
3 3
D 5 0.5H D 5 0.5H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 2
Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)
Figure 14. Effect of foundation yielding for cases with various offset distances (upper tier): (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.5H
stability of the lower tier is re-examined by using the total respect to the unit weight of the backfill, ª, and the
reinforcement force F in Figure 17. Note that the total squared lower-tier height H 22 , is used. As seen, for all
reinforcement force F is the sum of the reinforcement cases of D, the magnitude of F=ª H 22 for a yielding
forces in the lower tier. In Figure 17, normalised F with foundation case is approximately twice that for a rigid
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 191
3.0 0.8
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2.5 Lower Upper
Upper Rigid
0.4 FHWA
1.5
1.0
0.2
0.5
0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Offset distance, D/H
Offset distance, D/H
5
in the internal stability calculation model adopted in the
4 FHWA design approach, as this approach yields consider-
ably larger F=ª H 22 than those from the FE analyses for all
Wall height, H (m)
3
levels of D, regardless of the foundation condition. Further
D 5 0.05H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
study is warranted to refine the internal stability calcula-
2
tion model adopted in the currently available limit equili-
Lower Upper
tier tier brium based design approaches for multi-tiered SRWs.
Yielding
1
Rigid 5.3. Effect of reinforcement distribution
FHWA For a given multi-tiered GR-SRW geometry, the reinforce-
0
ment distribution in terms of length in each tier is
0 20 40 60 80 expected to have a significant influence on the wall
Reinforcement force (kN/m)
(a)
performance, as would be the case for a single wall (Ho
1993). The effect of reinforcement distribution is therefore
5 examined for walls on a yielding foundation with two
levels of offset distances, D ¼ 0.25H and 0.5H. In this
4 study, each tier was assumed to adopt a uniform reinforce-
ment length for simplicity. The variation of wall perform-
Wall height, H (m)
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
192 Yoo and Song
350 300
D 0.05H 0.1H D 0.05H 0.1H
UL LL
0.4H 0.6H
300 0.6H 0.7H
250
(äh,face)max (mm)
(äh,face)max (mm)
1.0H 1.0H
250
200
200
150 150
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
LL/H UL/H
(a) (a)
300 250
D 0.25H 0.5H D 0.25H 0.5H
UL LL
0.4H 0.6H
250 0.6H 0.7H
200
(äh,face)max (mm)
(äh,face)max (mm)
1.0H 1.0H
200
150
150
100 100
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
LL/H UL/H
(b) (b)
Figure 18. Variation of (h,face )max with LL (lower tier): Figure 19. Variation of (h,face )max with UL (lower tier):
(a) D ¼ 0.05H, 0.1H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H, 0.5H (a) D ¼ 0.05H, 0.1H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H, 0.5H
5 5
4 4
Wall height, H (m)
5 5
4 4
Wall height, H (m)
Wall height, H (m)
Figure 20. Effect of LL on lower-tier lateral deformation: (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 193
5 5
4 4
5 5
4 4
Wall height, H (m)
Figure 21. Effect of UL on lower-tier lateral deformation: (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H
lateral deformation profiles for the lower tier in Figures for the upper tier, thus implying that it may not be
20 and 21. It can be seen in these figures that the lateral relevant for the internal stability of the upper tier.
deformation at the wall face of the lower tier tends to • The potential for a global shear failure is likely to
decrease not only with increasing LL but also with increase in the event of foundation yielding, and
increasing UL. For example, an increase in UL for a fixed such a trend highlights the importance of carrying
LL results in a 100 mm decrease in the lateral deformation out a global slope stability analysis for multi-tiered
at the wall face of the lower tier through decreases in the GR-SRWs constructed on incompetent foundation
lateral deformation both within and behind the reinforced conditions.
soil block, as shown for D ¼ 0.05H in Figure 21a. • The rate of increase in lateral wall deformation with
Although the FHWA design approach specifies 70% of decreasing offset distance increases more rapidly for
upper-tier height as the minimum required reinforcement the yielding foundation than for the rigid foundation,
length, a longer UL would be beneficial in reducing the which implies that the degree of interaction between
lateral wall deformation for cases in which the wall the upper and lower tiers for a given D is higher
deformation is to be minimised. when the wall is subject to foundation yielding. A
similar trend is observed in the variation of the
reinforcement forces with the offset distance.
6. CONCLUSIONS • The upper reinforcement length UL is as important
The effects of foundation yielding on two-tiered geosyn- as LL in limiting the lower-tier lateral deformation,
thetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls were investi- especially when LL , 0.7H. Although the FHWA
gated using a calibrated plane strain finite element (FE) design approach specifies 70% of upper-tier height
model. The results of the FE modelling were analysed in as the minimum required reinforcement length, a
order to identify the fundamental interaction mechanism longer UL would be beneficial in reducing the lateral
between the upper and lower tiers when subject to wall deformation.
unanticipated foundation yielding. Based on the findings • For a given wall geometry there exists a critical
from this study, the following conclusions can be drawn. combination of UL and LL that yields a minimum
lateral wall deformation. For the wall geometry
• Foundation yielding results in increases in the lateral considered in this study, the critical values of LL and
deformation of the lower tier, both within and behind UL appear to be in the neighbourhood of 0.6–0.7H.
the reinforced soil block for all levels of D, leading • The assumption of rigid foundations in designing a
to the conclusion that both the external and the tiered GR-SRW may yield design calculations on the
internal stability of the lower tier are affected. unsafe side when the wall is subject to unanticipated
However, the foundation yielding increases only the foundation yielding. Correct evaluation of the
lateral deformation behind the reinforced soil block foundation condition during design stage is therefore
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
194 Yoo and Song
The Editors welcome discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 April 2007.
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.