Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yu 2016
Yu 2016
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Geosynthetic-reinforced and column-supported (GRCS) embankments have proven to be an effective
Received 3 September 2015 construction technique for fills on soft foundations. The paper introduces a modified unit cell approach to
Received in revised form model GRCS embankments supported by deep mixed column walls. The modified unit cells include linear
4 January 2016
elastic springs at one or both vertical boundaries to simulate lateral displacements of the embankment
Accepted 14 January 2016
Available online xxx
fill and foundation soil. The finite difference program FLAC is used to compare numerical outcomes using
the modified unit cells with those using the typical unit cell arrangement with lateral rigid side
boundaries. Numerical results demonstrate good agreement between simulations using small-strain and
Keywords:
Geosynthetic reinforcement
large-strain modes in some cases and large differences in other cases. Lateral displacements of the
Column-supported embankments embankment fill and foundation soil using the modified unit cells are shown to have large influence on
Numerical modelling reinforcement loads. Finally the paper demonstrates that calculated reinforcement loads are sensitive to
Unit cell choice of small-strain or large-strain mode when using program FLAC.
Deep mixing © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
FLAC
1. Introduction and timber piles with and without pile caps and basal reinforce-
ment have also been used to increase the construction rate and to
Embankments over soft foundations must be designed to avoid improve load transfer from the soft soil to the stiffer piles (e.g.,
bearing capacity failure of the foundation, unacceptable lateral Briançon and Simon, 2012; Liu et al., 2007; Nunez et al., 2013; Rowe
spreading of the embankment fill, and damage to adjacent struc- and Liu, 2015; Zhang et al., 2013; Blanc et al., 2014; Xing et al., 2014;
tures due to large differential settlements. An effective technique to Bhasi and Rajagopal, 2015a, 2015b). The basic working mechanisms
overcome these challenges is to use geosynthetic-reinforced and for DM column/pile-supported embankments with geosynthetic
column-supported (GRCS) embankments (Fig. 1). The addition of reinforcement are soil arching and tensioned membrane effects
geosynthetic reinforcement improves the performance of column- resulting in load transfer from the embankment fill self-weight
supported embankments that predate the use of GRCS embank- (plus any surcharge) to the DM columns/piles. The load on the
ments. Common support types for GRCS embankments are DM columns/piles is then transferred to the deeper and stiffer soil
cementesoil deep mixing (DM) columns (e.g., Bergado et al., 1999; stratum (Fig. 1).
Borges and Marques, 2011; Bruce et al., 2013; Chai et al., 2015; GRCS embankments can be designed using closed-form solu-
Forsman et al., 1999; Han et al., 2007; Huang and Han, 2009, tions that take advantage of soil arching and tensioned membrane
2010; Huang et al., 2009; Lai et al., 2006; Liu and Rowe, 2015, load transfer mechanisms within the GRCS embankment system
2016; Yapage and Liyanapathirana, 2014) and geosynthetic- (e.g., Hewlett and Randolph, 1988; Low et al., 1994; Love and
encased stone columns (e.g., Hosseinpour et al., 2015; Khabbazian Milligan, 2003; Kempfert et al., 2004; BS8006, 2010; EBGEO,
et al., 2015; Yoo, 2010; Ali et al., 2014; Gu et al., 2016). Concrete 2011; Van Eekelen et al., 2011, 2013, 2015). Advanced numerical
models for complex soilestructure interaction problems using the
finite element method (FEM) and finite difference method (FDM)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 613 541 6000x6347; fax: þ1 613 541 6218. are becoming more common as a research tool to improve under-
E-mail addresses: yan.yu@queensu.ca (Y. Yu), bathurst-r@rmc.ca (R.J. Bathurst), standing of the behaviour of GRCS embankments (e.g., Liu and
ivan.puig@upc.edu (I.P. Damians). Rowe, 2015; Han et al., 2007). The advantage of using a full-width
1
Tel.: þ1 613 541 6000x6479, fax: þ1 613 541 6218. numerical model of a GRCS embankment is that lateral
2
Tel.: þ34 93 401 1695; fax: þ34 93 401 7251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.01.003
0266-1144/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343 333
Fig. 1. Schematic showing a full-width model of a GRCS embankment with DM column walls.
deformations that vary across the width and depth of the 2. Small- and large-strain mode in FLAC
embankment fill and foundation are predicted. Of course, the ac-
curacy of numerical predictions will depend on mesh refinement Numerical analyses using FLAC models (Itasca, 2011) can be
and the complexity of the constitutive models used for the executed in either large-strain mode (based on the Lagrangian
component materials and their interfaces. However, parametric formulation) or small-strain mode (based on the Eulerian formu-
analyses at the design stage using a full-width model can be very lation). For the Lagrangian formulation, the numerical grid co-
time consuming and may not adequately capture local load transfer ordinates at the end of each calculation step (or specified steps) are
mechanisms particularly if a coarse numerical mesh is used in the updated by adding the grid incremental displacements to grid co-
simulations. A strategy to overcome this shortcoming is the unit ordinates before the next step. Hence, stresses and displacements
cell approach (e.g., Han and Gabr, 2002; Smith and Filz, 2007; at the current calculation step are calculated based on the updated
Zhuang et al., 2010; Khabbazian et al., 2015). The location of an grid representing the deformed material zones. However for the
example unit cell in a GRCS embankment is shown in Fig. 1. How- Eulerian formulation, the grid is fixed to the original geometry and
ever, there are also limitations associated with typical unit cells material zones. The calculation of stresses and displacements is
including the use of fixed lateral boundaries (Fig. 2a). Khabbazian based on the fixed grid even though the material zones move and
et al. (2015) showed that the tensile loads in the geosynthetic deform during subsequent calculation steps. The reader is directed
reinforcement using a full-width GRCS embankment model were to the FLAC manual (Itasca, 2011) for details regarding small- and
much greater than those using the unit cell approach for the same large-strain options in the program.
structure. They attributed this discrepancy to lateral spreading of
the embankment fill and foundation soil in the full-width model 3. Problem definition and parameter values
that was not captured by the unit cell. Regardless of which
approach is used to model GRCS embankment performance, nu- Fig. 1 shows a GRCS embankment where the soft foundation soil
merical results can also depend on how geometric nonlinearity of is improved by the cementesoil DM column walls. The numerical
the soil and reinforcement is modelled using the small-strain and simulations carried out in this paper are for two-dimensional cases
large-strain options in the FDM program FLAC (Itasca, 2011) or with because of the plane-strain condition associated with Fig. 1. How-
and without mesh updating in FEM software programs. ever, the general approach presented in this paper can be extended
The objectives of this paper are to demonstrate a new modelling to model three-dimensional GRCS embankment cases. This paper
technique using a modified unit cell approach to simulate the uses the example of GRCS embankments with 10-m thick soft
lateral spreading of the embankment fill and foundation soil, and to foundation soil and 1e5-m thick embankment fills. Above the soft
examine the influence of large-strain and small-strain model op- foundation soil is a working platform fill with a geosynthetic layer
tions in program FLAC on numerical outcomes (i.e., with and placed 0.3 m above the foundation soil surface. The spacing of 0.7-
without mesh updating during calculation steps). Numerical results m thick column walls was 2.8 m (e.g., Forsman et al., 1999; Han
using (conventional) unit cells with lateral rigid boundaries and et al., 2007; Huang and Han, 2010). The area replacement ratio in
units cells with one or both vertical boundaries supported by the numerical examples in this paper is 25%. The column walls are
horizontal linear elastic springs are presented and compared. The founded on bedrock.
effect of lateral spring stiffness values on lateral spreading of the The location of an example unit cell in this study is shown in
embankment fill and foundation soil, and reinforcement loads are Fig. 1. Fig. 2a shows a unit cell (Case 1) with typical boundary
demonstrated. conditions (e.g., fixed y-direction at bottom of the cell, and fixed x-
334 Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343
Fig. 2. Unit cell (with half of DM column wall on each side of the cell) with: (a) fixed x-displacement boundary condition on both left and right sides of the cell (Case 1), (b) fixed x-
displacement boundary condition on left side and springs on right side of the cell (Case 2), and (c) springs on both left and right sides of the cell (Case 3).
displacement at both left and right sides of the cell). The width of Table 1
Material property values in FLAC.
the unit cell is 2.8 m with half of the DM column wall (i.e., 0.35-m
thick) on both right and left sides of the unit cell. To allow for lateral Properties Value
spreading of the embankment fill and foundation soil, the Case 1 Embankment and working platform fill
unit cell is first modified using a column of horizontal springs (with Unit weight, gef (kN/m3) 20
axial stiffness k) at the right side boundary of both the embankment Young's modulus, Eef (MPa) 40
Poisson's ratio, nef (e) 0.3
fill and foundation soil (Case 2 e Fig. 2b) and then both left and
Friction angle, fef (degree) 35
right side boundaries (Case 3 e Fig. 2c). The spring stiffness values Dilation angle, jef (degree) 5
can be different on left and right sides of the unit cell and different Cohesion, cef (kPa) 1
for the embankment fill and soft foundation soil. These cases are Soft foundation soil
also examined in the paper. Unit weight, gfs (kN/m3) 16
For a 5-m high embankment fill, the unit cell was modelled Young's modulus of soft clay 1, Efs,1 (MPa) 0.5
using 8400 zones and 112 cable elements for the geosynthetic Young's modulus of soft clay 2, Efs,2 (MPa) 1.0
Young's modulus of soft clay 3, Efs,3 (MPa) 1.5
reinforcement. A linear elastic model with MohreCoulomb failure
Young's modulus of soft clay 4, Efs,4 (MPa) 2.0
criterion was selected to model both the embankment fill and soft Young's modulus of soft clay 5, Efs,5 (MPa) 2.5
foundation soil. More advanced constitutive models for the soils Poisson's ratio, nfs () 0.25
and reinforcement were not used in this study in order to focus on Friction angle, ffs (degree) 15
the modified unit cell concept. Parameter values are summarized in Dilation angle, jfs (degree) 0
Cohesion, cfs (kPa) 5
Table 1 and were selected based on ranges reported in the literature
(Budhu, 2010; Huang and Han, 2010; Huang et al., 2009). The ma- DM column
Unit weight, gc (kN/m3) 20
terial properties for the working platform fill were taken to be the
Young's modulus, Ec (MPa) 150
same as those for the embankment fill (Huang and Han, 2010). A Poisson's ratio, nc () 0.3
depth-dependent Young's modulus for the foundation soil was
used as follows: Efs,1 ¼ 0.5 MPa for foundation soil depth between
0 and 2 m, Efs,2 ¼ 1 MPa between 2 and 4 m, Efs,3 ¼ 1.5 MPa between Table 2
4 and 6 m, Efs,4 ¼ 2 MPa between 6 and 8 m, and Efs,5 ¼ 2.5 MPa Interfaces and corresponding parameter values in FLAC.
between 8 and 10 m. A linear elastic model was used for the DM
Interface and parameters Value
column walls with Young's modulus of 150 MPa and Poisson's ratio
of 0.3 taken from Huang and Han (2010). Soft clay-DM column and soft clay-platform fill
Friction angle, fi,fs (degree) 10
The load transfer between the dissimilar materials within the
Dilation angle, ji,fs (degree) 0
unit cell was modelled using interfaces with the normal stiffness, Adhesion, ci,fs (kPa) 3.3
shear stiffness, friction angle, dilation angle and cohesion values Normal stiffness, kn,fs (MPa/m) 10
shown in Table 2 together with a strength reduction factor of Ri ¼ 2/ Shear stiffness, ks,fs (MPa/m) 1
3. The method to calculate the interface parameter values based on Platform fill-DM column
the surrounding soil properties is described by Yu et al. (2015b). For Friction angle, fi,pf (degree) 25
example, the friction angle (fi,fs) and cohesion (ci,fs) for the inter- Dilation angle, ji,pf (degree) 0
Cohesion, ci,pf (kPa) 0.67
face between the foundation soil and DM column is computed by
Normal stiffness, kn,pf (MPa/m) 100
applying a reduction factor Ri ¼ 2/3 to the friction angle (ffs) and Shear stiffness, ks,pf (MPa/m) 10
cohesion (cfs) of the foundation soil resulting in
Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343 335
fi,fs ¼ tan1[Ri tan(ffs)] ¼ tan1[2/3 tan(15 )] ¼ 10 and small-strain or large-strain mode was selected to investigate the
ci,fs ¼ Ri cfs ¼ 2/3 5.0 ¼ 3.3 kPa. influence of strain mode on numerical outcomes. To simulate the
The lateral springs shown in Fig. 2b and c were modelled using embankment construction, 0.2-m thick embankment fill lifts were
special interfaces with only normal stiffness values (the shear activated in sequence and the model was solved to equilibrium for
stiffness values were set to zero) using the ‘glued’ condition in FLAC. each embankment fill lift until reaching the final embankment
Thus for these interfaces, friction angle, dilation angle, and cohe- height of 5 m. The activation of the second embankment fill lift was
sion values were not required. The concept of using horizontal accompanied by adding the cable elements to the model. It should
springs to simulate the soil lateral response in this paper is similar be noted that only idealized (fully drained) conditions for the
to that used in soilestructure interaction design of supported foundation soil were examined in this study; hence the generation
excavation walls and analyses for laterally loaded piles and verti- and dissipation of pore-water pressures that may occur in field
cally loaded beams/plates (e.g., Selvadurai, 1979; Canadian cases was not considered.
Geotechnical Society, 2006; Prendergast and Gavin, 2016). An All numerical simulations were run using a desk top computer
initial estimation of the spring stiffness k was based on an empirical with two Intel Xeon X5670 Six-Core 2.93 GHz central processor
method from Barden (1962) using k ¼ 0.65Efs/B/(1-v2fs) where Efs units. The computer solved the numerical models in about 1e2 h
and vfs are the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the foun- depending on the boundary conditions and the choice of large- and
dation soil, and B is the foundation width. A constant value of small-strain modes. For example, it took longer to solve Case 3
k ¼ 1 MPa/m was used as the reference value in this paper and is models than Cases 2 and 1 with the same material properties and
close to the average of k ¼ 0.35e1.73 MPa/m computed using large/small-strain mode, and models using large-strain mode took
Efs ¼ 0.5e2.5 MPa, vfs ¼ 0.25 and foundation width B ¼ 1 m. longer to solve than those using small-strain mode for the same
However, a sensitivity analysis using larger spring stiffness values boundary conditions and material properties.
including infinite stiffness was also carried out.
The cable nodes for the geosynthetic reinforcement on the left 4. Results
and right side of the unit cell were defined using grid numbers and
the remainder were defined using x- and y-coordinates. The geo- 4.1. Unit cell for Case 1
synthetic reinforcement was assigned an axial stiffness of
J ¼ 2000 kN/m. This value falls within measured ranges reported by Fig. 3a shows the calculated maximum vertical stresses at the
Forsman et al. (1999) and is similar to the value used in numerical foundation surface of an embankment supported by DM column
models by Han et al. (2007) and Huang and Han (2010). The cable walls and geosynthetic reinforcement using a unit cell with fixed
elements have a cross-section area of Ag ¼ 0.002 m2 per metre x-displacement at both right and left sides of the unit cell (Case 1;
running length of column and perimeter of Pg ¼ 2 m (with an out- Fig. 2a). The numerical results show that increasing the
of-plane width of 1 m). Thus the Young's modulus of each cable embankment fill height increased the maximum vertical stress at
element is calculated as Eg ¼ J/Ag ¼ 2000/0.002 ¼ 1000 MPa. For the the foundation surface. For example, the maximum foundation
cable grout properties, the shear stiffness is surface vertical stress was about 14 kPa for 1-m high embankment
Ks,g ¼ Pg ks,pf ¼ 2 10 ¼ 20 MN/m/m, the adhesion is fill and increased to about 22 kPa for 5-m high embankment fill
Cg ¼ Pg ci,pf ¼ 2 0.67 ¼ 1.33 kPa, and the friction angle is when using the large-strain mode. The differences in calculated
fg ¼ fi,pf ¼ 25 , where ks,pf, ci,pf and fi,pf are the shear stiffness, maximum vertical stresses at the foundation surface using both
cohesion and fiction angle of the interface between the platform fill large- and small-strain modes are negligible. However, for the
and DM column, respectively (Table 2). The shear stiffness was set embankment fill higher than 0.5 m, the calculated maximum
to be ks,pf ¼ 10 MPa/m (Yu et al., 2015a) and the adhesion was taken vertical stresses at the foundation surface were much less than
as ci,pf ¼ Ri cef ¼ 2/3 1.0 ¼ 0.67 kPa (where Ri is the strength those calculated using only soil self-weight (gefh) because of the
reduction factor introduced earlier and cef is the cohesion of soil arching effect. The greater vertical stress at the foundation
embankment fill/working platform fill). Table 3 summarizes all surface with increasing embankment height resulted in larger
properties related to the cable elements. vertical settlement as shown in Fig. 3b. The maximum settlement
The modelling started by setting the initial ground stresses us- at the foundation surface was about 44 mm at 1-m high
ing K0 ¼ 1 sin(ffs) ¼ 0.741 for the soft foundation soil without the embankment fill and increased to about 85 mm at 5-m high
DM column walls (e.g., by assuming that the DM column walls have embankment fill when using large-strain mode. The differences in
the same material properties as the soft foundation soil). To vertical settlements at the foundation surface using large- and
simulate the DM column walls, the true wall material properties small-strain modes were less than 3 mm for the Case 1 unit cell
were then applied and the model was solved to equilibrium. The examined in this paper.
influence of installing the DM column wall on the stress distribu- The load transfer from the embankment fill to the DM column
tion within the soft foundation soil was not considered in this pa- walls and soft foundation soil was modelled using interfaces. Fig. 4a
per. The numerical grid displacements and velocities were then set shows the interface normal stresses acting on the top of the DM
to zero. Small-strain mode was used in all simulations prior to column wall and foundation surface at 5-m high embankment fill
placement of the fill. Thereafter, during embankment construction, for the Case 1 unit cell (Fig. 2a). The vertical stresses on the soft
foundation surface (i.e., on the centre part of the unit cell) were
much lower than those at the top of the DM column walls (i.e., left
Table 3 and right sides of the unit cell) because the soil self-weight load
Parameter values of cable elements in FLAC. above the soft foundation is transferred to the DM column walls
Cable element parameters Value due to the soil arching effect. For example, the vertical stresses at
the centres of the DM column walls (i.e., left and right edges of the
Young's modulus, Eg (MPa) 1000
Cross-sectional area, Ag (m2/m) 2 103 unit cell) were about 332 kPa and increased to about 388 kPa at the
Exposed perimeter, Pg (m) 2 intersections between the DM column walls and foundation soil
Grout stiffness, Ks,g (MN/m/m) 20 when using large-strain mode and are much greater than those
Grout cohesion, Cg (kN/m) 1.33 computed based on soil self-weight alone (i.e., 100 kPa). The ver-
Grout frictional resistance, fg (degree) 25
tical stresses on the foundation surface were generally less than
336 Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343
Fig. 3. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 1 unit cell on (a) the Fig. 4. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 1 unit cell with 5-m high
maximum vertical stresses at the foundation surface, and (b) the maximum settle- embankment fill on (a) the interface normal stresses at the foundation surface
ments at the foundation surface. elevation, and (b) the vertical stress above the centre of the unit cell.
24 kPa which are much lower than stresses due to soil self-weight. and minimum value of 1.6 kN/m at x ¼ 1.4 m. However, when
The choice of large- and small-strain modes had negligible influ- using the small-strain mode the reinforcement tensile loads were
ence on the vertical stresses at the foundation surface and the top much lower (e.g., the maximum reinforcement load was about
of the DM column walls using the Case 1 unit cell. The reason for 3 kN/m at x ¼ 0 and 2.8 m for the small-strain mode versus
zero stress at the column edges is that the foundation surface 11 kN/m at x ¼ 0.35 and 2.45 m noted above for the large-strain
settled more than the bottom of the embankment backfill resulting mode). It should be noted that the reinforcement loads for Case 1
in separation between the foundation surface and backfill near the using small-strain mode were positive between x ¼ 0 and 2.8 m
edges of the columns. and near zero between x ¼ 0.8 and 2.0 m. The influence of choice
The soil arching effect can also be appreciated from the vertical of small- and large-strain mode in FLAC on the magnitude of
stresses at the centre of the unit cell within the 5-m high reinforcement tensile loads is judged to be significant for the
embankment fill shown in Fig. 4b. The calculated vertical stresses Case 1 unit cell conditions. The differences are because the
within the embankment fill were equal to those from soil self- reinforcement tensile loads using the large-strain mode (i.e., with
weight over the first 2 m below the embankment surface. There- mesh updating) were generated from both the horizontal and
after, the calculated vertical stress plots depart from the soil self- vertical differential displacements between the soil and the
weight line. This is because of the stress redistribution within the reinforcement, while those using small-strain mode (i.e., without
embankment fill due to the soil arching mechanism which redirects mesh updating) were generated only from the horizontal differ-
the embankment fill self-weight to the DM column walls and then ential displacements between the soil and the reinforcement.
to the stiffer stratum at depth. Thus the results from large-strain mode are judged to be more
Fig. 5a shows the reinforcement tensile loads for the 5-m high accurate and representative of field performance than those us-
embankment fill and Case 1 unit cell (Fig. 2a) using both small- ing the small-strain mode especially for a soft foundation with
and large-strain modes in FLAC. The use of large-strain mode horizontal geosynthetic reinforcement; this is because the
resulted in reinforcement tensile loads of about 8 kN/m at x ¼ 0 tensioned membrane effect can be modelled only using the large-
and 2.8 m, maximum values of 11 kN/m at x ¼ 0.35 and 2.45 m, strain mode.
Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343 337
Fig. 5. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 1 unit cell on (a) the Fig. 6. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 2 unit cell with spring
reinforcement tensile loads, and (b) the reinforcement vertical displacements for 5-m stiffness k ¼ 1 MPa/m on (a) the maximum vertical stresses at the foundation surface,
high embankment fill. and (b) the maximum settlements at the foundation surface.
Fig. 8. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 2 unit cell with spring
stiffness k ¼ 1 MPa/m on (a) the reinforcement tensile loads, and (b) the reinforcement
vertical displacements for 5-m high embankment fill.
Fig. 10. Influence of soil spring stiffness values for Case 2 unit cell on the reinforce-
ment tensile loads with large-strain mode at 5-m high embankment fill using the same Fig. 11. Influence of spring stiffness values of the foundation soil for Case 2 unit cell on
spring stiffness values for the embankment fill and foundation soil. the reinforcement tensile loads with large-strain mode at 5-m high embankment fill.
340 Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343
Fig. 12. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 3 unit cell with spring Fig. 13. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 3 unit cell with spring
stiffness values kl ¼ kr ¼ 1 MPa/m on (a) the maximum vertical stresses at the foun- stiffness values kl ¼ kr ¼ 1 MPa/m on (a) the interface normal stresses at the foun-
dation surface, and (b) the maximum settlements at the foundation surface. dation surface elevation and 5-m high embankment fill, and (b) the vertical stress at
the centre of unit cell within the embankment fill.
4.6. Influence of foundation modulus on reinforcement loads for 4.8. Stress reduction ratio
Case 3
The influence of different unit cells on load transfer can also be
Fig. 16 shows the influence of foundation modulus on the examined using the stress reduction ratio (SRR) which is defined as
reinforcement loads for Case 3 with large-strain mode. Increasing the ratio of the stress acting on the soft foundation surface between
Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343 341
Fig. 14. Influence of large- and small-strain modes for Case 3 unit cell with spring Fig. 15. Influence of spring stiffness values at left side of Case 3 unit cell on (a) the
stiffness values kl ¼ kr ¼ 1 MPa/m on (a) the reinforcement tensile loads, and (b) the reinforcement tensile loads, and (b) the reinforcement vertical displacements with
reinforcement vertical displacements for 5-m high embankment fill. large-strain mode at 5-m high embankment fill using the same spring stiffness values
for the embankment fill and foundation soil.
5. Conclusions
0.8
Notation
0.6
Basic SI units are given in parentheses
K0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
(dimensionless)
0.4 k spring stiffness at right side of unit cell for Case 2 (Pa/m)
kb spring stiffness for embankment fill at right side of unit
cell for Case 2 (Pa/m)
Unit cell boundary conditions
0.2 Case 1: Fixed at left and right sides kf spring stiffness for foundation soil at right side of unit cell
Case 2: Fixed at left side and spring k = 1 MPa/m at right side for Case 2 (Pa/m)
Case 3: Spring kl = kr = 1 MPa/m at left and right sides kl spring stiffness at left side of unit cell for Case 3 (Pa/m)
0.0 kr spring stiffness at right side of unit cell for Case 3 (Pa/m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 h thickness of embankment fill (m)
Embankment fill height, h (m) J axial stiffness of geosynthetic (N/m)
Ri strength reduction factor (dimensionless)
Fig. 18. Calculated stress reduction ratio for Cases 1, 2, and 3 with large-strain mode. x, y Cartesian co-ordinates with origin at base of unit cell (m)
Other notations appear in the tables.
same structures using the typical unit cell approach. The current
investigation presents a modified unit cell approach to simulate References
the lateral spreading of the embankment fill and foundation soil
using horizontal linear elastic springs at the vertical boundaries of Ali, K., Shahu, J.T., Sharma, K.G., 2014. Model tests on single and groups of stone
the unit cell. Program FLAC is used to examine the influence of columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement. Geosynth. Int.
21 (2), 103e118.
large- and small-strain modes on conventional and modified unit Barden, L., 1962. Distribution of contact pressure under foundations. Geotechnique
cell behaviour. Based on the numerical results using the three 12 (3), 181e198.
different unit cells examined in this paper, the following con- Bergado, D.T., Ruenkrairergsa, T., Taesiri, Y., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1999. Deep soil
mixing used to reduce embankment settlement. Ground Improv. 3, 145e162.
clusions can be summarized: Bhasi, A., Rajagopal, K., 2015a. Geosynthetic-reinforced piled embankments: com-
parison of numerical and analytical methods. ASCE Int. J. Geomech. 15 (5),
For a typical unit cell with fixed lateral horizontal displacements 04014074.
Bhasi, A., Rajagopal, K., 2015b. Numerical study of basal reinforced embankments
at the side boundaries (Case 1 unit cell in Fig. 2a), the use of supported on floating/end bearing piles considering pileesoil interaction.
large- and small-strain modes has minor influence on the Geotext. Geomembr. 43 (6), 524e536.
maximum vertical stresses and settlements, and interface Blanc, M., Thorel, L., Girout, R., Almeida, M., 2014. Geosynthetic reinforcement of a
granular load transfer platform above rigid inclusions: comparison between
normal stresses at the foundation surface. However, when the
centrifuge testing and analytical modelling. Geosynth. Int. 21 (1), 37e52.
numerical model was run in small-strain mode, the calculated Borges, J.L., Marques, D.O., 2011. Geosynthetic-reinforced and jet grout column-
reinforcement loads were much lower compared to large-strain supported embankments on soft soils: numerical analysis and parametric
study. Comput. Geotechnics 38, 883e896.
mode.
Briançon, L., Simon, B., 2012. Performance of pile-supported embankment over soft
For the modified unit cells with lateral springs (Case 2 unit cell soil: full-scale experiment. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (4), 551e561.
in Fig. 2b and Case 3 unit cell in Fig. 2c), the lateral spreading of Bruce, M.E.C., Berg, R.R., Collin, J.G., Filz, G.M., Terashi, M., Yang, D.S., 2013. Federal
the embankment fill and foundation soil increased the Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and
Foundation Support. U.S. Department of Transportation, USA, 248 pp.
maximum vertical stresses and settlements at the foundation BS8006, 2010. Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soil and Other Fills.
surface, and the reinforcement loads when compared to British Standards Institution (BSI), Milton Keynes, UK.
Y. Yu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 332e343 343
Budhu, M., 2010. Soil Mechanics and Foundations, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Liu, K.W., Rowe, R.K., 2015. Numerical study of the effects of geosynthetic rein-
Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, forcement viscosity on behaviour of embankments supported by deep-mixing
fourth ed. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C. method columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 43 (6), 567e578.
Chai, J.C., Shrestha, S., Hino, T., Ding, W.Q., Kamo, Y., Carter, J., 2015. 2D and 3D Liu, K.W., Rowe, R.K., 2016. Performance of reinforced, DMM column-supported
analyses of an embankment on clay improved by soilecement columns. Com- embankment considering reinforcement viscosity and subsoil's decreasing
put. Geotechnics 68, 28e37. hydraulic conductivity. Comput. Geotechnics 71, 147e158.
EBGEO, 2011. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures Using Love, J., Milligan, G., 2003. Design methods for basally reinforced pile-supported
Geosynthetic Reinforcements e EBGEO. German Geotechnical Society, ISBN embankments over soft ground. Ground Eng. 39e43.
978-3-433-02983-1. Digital Version in English, ISBN: 978-3-433-60093-1. Low, B.K., Tang, S.K., Choa, V., 1994. Arching in piled embankments. ASCE J. Geotech.
Forsman, J., Honkala, A., Smura, M., 1999. Hertsby case: a column stabilized and Eng. 120 (11), 1917e1938.
geotextile reinforced road embankment on soft subsoil. In: Dry Mix Method for Nunez, M.A., Briancon, L., Dias, D., 2013. Analyses of a pile-supported embankment
Deep Soil Stabilization. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 263e268. over soft clay: full-scale experiment, analytical and numerical approaches. Eng.
Gu, M., Zhao, M., Zhang, L., Han, J., 2016. Effects of geogrid encasement on lateral Geol. 153, 53e67.
and vertical deformations of stone columns in model tests. Geosynth. Int. Prendergast, L.J., Gavin, K., 2016. A comparison of initial stiffness formulations for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.0003. small-strain soil-pile dynamic Winkler modelling. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 81,
Han, J., Gabr, M.A., 2002. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced and pile- 27e41.
supported earth platforms over soft soil. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. Rowe, R.K., Liu, K.W., 2015. 3D finite element modeling of a full-scale geosynthetic-
128 (1), 44e53. reinforced, pile-supported embankment. Can. Geotech. J. 52 (12), 2041e2054.
Han, J., Oztoprak, S., Parsons, R.L., Huang, J., 2007. Numerical analysis of foundation Selvadurai, A.P.S., 1979. Elastic Analysis of Soilefoundation Interaction. Elsevier,
columns to support widening of embankments. Comput. Geotechnics 34 (6), Amsterdam.
435e448. Smith, M., Filz, G., 2007. Axisymmetric numerical modeling of a unit cell in
Hewlett, W.J., Randolph, M.F., 1988. Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Eng. 21 geosynthetic-reinforced, column-supported embankments. Geosynth. Int. 14
(3), 12e18. (1), 13e22.
Hosseinpour, I., Almeida, M.S.S., Riccio, M., 2015. Full-scale load test and finite- Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Van Tol, A.F., 2011. Analysis and modification of the
element analysis of soft ground improved by geotextile-encased granular col- British Standard BS8006 for the design of piled embankments. Geotext. Geo-
umns. Geosynth. Int. 22 (6), 428e438. membr. 29 (3), 345e359.
Huang, J., Han, J., 2009. 3D coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of a Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Van Tol, A.F., 2013. An analytical model for arching
geosynthetic-reinforced deep mixed column-supported embankment. Geotext. in piled embankments. Geotext. Geomembr. 39, 78e102.
Geomembr. 27, 272e280. Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Van Tol, A.F., 2015. Validation of analytical models
Huang, J., Han, J., 2010. Two-dimensional parametric study of geosynthetic- for the design of basal reinforced piled embankments. Geotext. Geomembr. 43
reinforced column-supported embankments by coupled hydraulic and me- (1), 56e81.
chanical modeling. Comput. Geotechnics 37, 638e648. Xing, H., Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Wei, H., 2014. Large-scale tests of pile-supported earth
Huang, J., Han, J., Oztoprak, S., 2009. Coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of platform with and without geogrid. Geotext. Geomembr. 42 (6), 586e598.
geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments. ASCE J. Geotech. Yapage, N.N.S., Liyanapathirana, D.S., 2014. A parametric study of geosynthetic-
Geoenviron. Eng. 135, 1011e1021. reinforced column-supported embankments. Geosynth. Int. 21 (3),
Itasca, 2011. FLAC: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Version 7.0 (computer 213e232.
program). Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Yoo, C., 2010. Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment
Kempfert, H.G., Go € bel, C., Alexiew, D., Heitz, C., 2004. German recommendations for construction: numerical investigation. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136
the reinforced embankments on pile-similar elements. In: Proceedings of the (8), 1148e1160.
3rd European Conference on Geosynthetics, Munich, Germany, pp. 279e284. Yu, Y., Bathurst, R.J., Miyata, Y., 2015a. Numerical analysis of a mechanically stabi-
Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V.N., Meehan, C.L., 2015. Column supported embankments lized earth wall reinforced with steel strips. Soils Found. 55 (3), 536e547.
with geosynthetic encased columns: validity of the unit cell concept. Geotech. Yu, Y., Damians, I.P., Bathurst, R.J., 2015b. Influence of choice of FLAC and PLAXIS
Geol. Eng. 33, 425e442. interface models on reinforced soilestructure interactions. Comput. Geo-
Lai, Y.P., Bergado, D.T., Lorenzo, G.A., Duangchan, T., 2006. Full-scale reinforced technics 65, 164e174.
embankment on deep jet mixing improved ground. Ground Improv. 10 (4), Zhang, J., Zheng, J.J., Chen, B.G., Yin, J.H., 2013. Coupled mechanical and hydraulic
153e164. modeling of a geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankment.
Liu, H.L., Ng, C.W.W., Fei, K., 2007. Performance of geogrid-reinforced and pile- Comput. Geotechnics 52, 28e37.
supported highway embankment over soft clay: case study. ASCE J. Geotech. Zhuang, Y., Ellis, E.A., Yu, H.S., 2010. Plane strain FE analysis of arching in a piled
Geoenviron. Eng. 133, 1483e1493. embankment. Ground Improv. 163 (4), 207e215.