Back-analysis of the Vung Tau full-scale trial using FEA

simulation of geogrid stabilisation and the geocell mattress

Andrew Lees
Tensar International, Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: ALees@tensar.co.uk
Michael Dobie
Tensar International, Jakarta, Indonesia. E-mail: MDobie@tensar.co.id
Mahesa Bhawanin
Tensar International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: MBhawanin@tensarcorp.com

Keywords: geocell mattress, geogrid, working platform, numerical modelling

ABSTRACT: The conventional approach to characterising the mechanical effect of multi-axial geogrid
on soil involves testing the mechanical properties of the soil and geogrid separately and introducing them
to a calculation model. Often the true performance is found to be greater than the sum of the parts – which
can be explained by mechanical stabilisation where the properties of the soil interacting with a geogrid
are actually enhanced. This paper presents a new shear strength criterion derived from large triaxial
compression tests performed on soil with stabilising multi-axial geogrid. A composite approach to
modelling the geocell mattress is also taken adopting an equivalent cohesion or tensile strength with
enhanced stiffness for the soil contained within the cells of the mattress, derived from 3D FEA simulation
of a theoretical large triaxial geocell mattress specimen. The full-scale loading test on a heavy-duty
working platform including multi-axial geogrid and a geocell mattress on soft soil at Vung Tau, Vietnam
was reported at the Geotec Hanoi 2011 conference. These material modelling techniques for mechanically
stabilised soil and the geocell mattress were applied using finite element analysis to provide an accurate
back-analysis of this important trial.

1. INTRODUCTION Although working platforms are often built for

Many construction projects invariably require
working platforms to support cranes or piling rigs
over soft subgrades. Platforms of this type are
generally considered to be temporary works, often
with little or no investigation and design to ensure
safe operating conditions for the heavy plant which
will be supported. Inadequate design of such
working platforms can result in poor working
conditions, such that frequent re-filling or re-
grading may be required with associated delays. In
severe cases heavy plant may become unstable
resulting in collapse or overturning. These
accidents frequently result in injuries or fatalities,
and lengthy investigations may result, including
detailed scrutiny of soil data, loadings and the
design method used to dimension the platform.
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
P. Duc Long and N. T. Dung (eds.) et al., Geotechnics for Sustainable
Infrastructure Development, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 62,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2184-3_146
short term use, for example to provide access to
install piles or vertical drains, they can also be used
for longer-term purposes. One common longer-
term use of working platforms is for the
construction of fabrication yards, in particular for
the fabrication of offshore equipment. Inevitably
such developments are close to the sea in order to
provide suitable access to deploy the equipment
being fabricated, in which case poor ground
conditions may frequently be expected and loads
from both the cranes being used and from the
fabricated units are likely to be high.
Whether for short-term or long-term use,
working platforms should be designed. Generally,
these platforms are built using well graded granular
fills, which are often expensive, especially when
heavy loads are to be supported and the platforms
become very thick. An increasingly popular way to
1119
1120 A. Lees et al.

reduce platform thickness is by incorporating main aims is to minimise differential settlement

geosynthetics, particularly polymer geogrids. Two across the embankment. Cellular basal mattresses,
applications of geogrids are introduced here and sometimes referred to as a geocell mattresses, may
their combined use in the Vung Tau project in also be used as components of working platforms
Vietnam is described in the following section. in cases where abnormally heavy loads are to be
Firstly, stabilisation, or mechanical stabilisation supported, due to their ability to redistribute such
(in order to distinguish it from lime or cement loads.
stabilisation), takes place when aggregate or soil
particles interlock with the apertures of a stiff
geogrid, resulting in confinement of the particles,
as shown in Figure 1. This combination of geogrid
and aggregate may be considered as a composite. If
a geogrid develops this interaction effectively, then
significant benefits result in terms of the
mechanical performance of the composite layer,
and these benefits will be seen at very small
surface deformation, implying very small
deformation of the geogrid itself. Mechanical
stabilisation of working platforms results in
increased bearing capacity and reduced settlement
at working load, which has been verified by full- Figure 2. Representation of geocell foundation mattress
scale loading tests. fabricated from stiff 1m wide uniaxial geogrid

This paper describes the back-analysis of the

Vung Tau full-scale trial of a working platform that
was presented at this conference in 2011 (Ong et
al., 2011). This working platform consisted of an
upper mechanically stabilised layer using geogrids
as shown in Figure 1 and a lower geocell mattress
as shown in Figure 2. The overall thickness of the
working platform was 3 m, made necessary by the
extremely high loads applied and the very low
strength of the supporting subsoil, as shown in
Figure 3. Three-dimensional (3D) finite element
analysis (FEA) was used with a new constitutive
Figure 1. Interlocking mechanism of stiff geogrid model for the mechanically stabilised layers and
providing lateral confinement and mechanical equivalent cohesion derived by 3D FEA for the soil
stabilisation confined within the cells of the geocell mattress.
Secondly, basal mattresses to provide enhanced
support over soft soils may be formed using a
three-dimensional honey-combed structure as
depicted in Figure 2, and described in BS 8006
(BSI 2016). The vertical sides and internal baffles
are formed using 1m wide stiff reinforcement
geogrids arranged in a vertical sense as shown, and
the cells created are filled with granular material.
This results in a basal mattress 1m thick, which is
typically used for the support of embankments
supported by soft clay foundations soils, improving
both stability and deformed shape. Although the
geosynthetics used are reinforcement geogrids, the
nature of the behaviour of the basal mattress may Figure 3. Cross section of geocell mattress working
be considered more as confinement and platform overlying the soft clay layer
stabilisation of the granular fill, where one of the
Back-analysis of the Vung Tau full-scale trial... 1121

2. VUNG TAU FULL-SCALE TRIAL of the test plate. The test setup and kentledge are
The developments at Vung Tau took place in shown in Figure 4. The load was applied to the
stages on adjacent sites. The sites are underlain by plate in steps of 100 kPa until the maximum
soft alluvial clays which were tested extensively required pressure of 600 kPa was reached. The first
using the in-situ vane, resulting in a lower bound four load steps were held for one hour each and the
undrained shear strength of 23 kPa being adopted final two stages were held for four hours.
for design over the full 10 m profile. The first Maximum settlement reached was 41 mm, as
development took place in 2009, where loads of shown in Figure 10. This performance was
300 kPa were expected and a low height granular considerably better than the target requirement of
fill, supported by a geocell foundation mattress as 100 mm maximum settlement at 500 kPa.
described in the previous section and shown in
Figure 2, was proposed. In order to provide an
indication of likely performance, 1.12 m diameter
plate loading tests were carried out on top of the
granular fill. These tests were taken up to 600 kPa
requiring 100 tonnes of kentledge and reached
about 18 mm settlement at maximum load. These
test results were considered satisfactory, but due
the relatively large overall thickness of the geocell
mattress combined with the supported granular fill,
they were not considered adequate to provide a true
indication of the influence of the supporting soft
clays.
The project was extended to an adjacent site
about 200 m away in 2010, where higher crane Figure 4. Photograph of the full-scale plate load test.
loads and track pressures would be applied to the (inset) Jack and dial gauges over the loaded steel plate
working platform. The heaviest crawler crane had
tracks 2 m wide by 13.7 m long, applying a 3. MECHANICAL STABILISATION
maximum pressure of 500 kPa to the supporting
Stiff, punched and drawn polypropylene (PP) and
platform surface. Due to this increased load, the
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrids are
working platform used in the first stage was
particularly effective at restricting the movement of
modified by using an arrangement of five layers of
soil particles in and around their apertures – a
geogrid in order to stabilise the upper 2 m
function defined as stabilisation (IGS, 2018).
thickness of granular fill, which was supported by
Conventionally, these materials are tested
the geocell mattress. The fill type used for both the
separately to obtain their mechanical properties
upper stabilised layer and the geocell mattress fill
(e.g. triaxial compression testing on the aggregate
was a well graded sandy gravel with less than 15%
and tensile testing in air on the geogrid) which are
fines. Design was carried out using a load spread
then introduced into a calculation model. This
method, which indicated that the design was
approach often under-predicts the true performance
satisfactory for the expected loads. The
because the mechanical properties of the composite
performance target of the working platform was
material composed of soil and geogrid is greater
that total settlement should be less than 100 mm at
than the sum of its parts. This can be explained by
a pressure of 500 kPa.
mechanical stabilisation actually enhancing the
In order to verify the performance of the
properties of the aggregate over a significant
working platform large plate bearing tests were
distance from the geogrid, typically 0.3 m or more.
carried out. The plate size used was 1.5 m wide by
Lees and Clausen (2019) performed very large
10 m long, so very close to the actual crane track
triaxial compression tests (specimen size 0.5 m dia.
dimensions, and more relevant than the previous
x 1.0 m height) with vacuum-applied confining
1.12 m circular plate tests. Six jacks were used to
stress on a dry, well-graded crushed diabase rock
apply the load up to a maximum of 600 kPa.
with and without a stiff, punched and drawn multi-
Reaction was provided using 1,100 tonnes of
axial PP geogrid placed at mid-height. While a
kentledge, which was supported on the platform
moderately curved failure envelope was obtained
surface immediately adjacent to and on either side
1122
in the cases without geogrid due to inter-particle
interlock and dilation in the compacted specimens,
the envelope became markedly more non-linear in
the cases with geogrid as shown in Figure 5. This
was the effect of additional particle restraint by the
geogrid.
Since the restraint on soil particles would be at a
maximum at the geogrid plane and reduce with
distance from the plane, the failure envelope was
considered to vary (assumed linearly) from a
maximum at the geogrid plane to the non-stabilised
failure envelope at the full influence extent Δz of
the geogrid.
A linear elastic perfectly-plastic (LEPP)
constitutive model called the Tensar Stabilised Soil
(TSS) model with the non-linear failure envelope
as shown in Figure 5 formulated in terms of
principal stresses was implemented into the Plaxis
2D and 3D 2018 (Brinkgreve et al., 2018) FEA
software and found to provide accurate predictions
of failure stress in back-analyses of the triaxial
compression tests (Lees and Clausen, 2019). The
model represents the stabilised soil as a single
composite rather than soil and geogrid separately.
Consequently, input parameters to the constitutive
model are derived by large triaxial compression
testing on the specific aggregate type and geogrid
together. All geogrids interact with soils in
different and hard to predict ways, so it is not
possible to derive model input parameters from
testing of the soil and geogrid separately.
σ1 At geogrid
elevation z
Linear interpolation of failure surface
between geogrid plane and vertical
influence extent Δz
Outside influence
extent of geogrid
Curvature at Slope k0
ct
Curvature a0
c0
σ3
Figure 5. Geogrid-stabilised soil failure envelope (Lees
and Clausen 2019).
A. Lees et al.
4. MODELLING GEOCELL MATTRESSES
Bathurst and Karpurapu (1993) performed large
(196 mm diameter) triaxial compression tests on
granular soils with and without a 1.15 mm thick
polyethylene (PE) membrane sheath. Specimens
with the PE sheath were intended to represent a
soil within one cell of a small geocell and were
tested in the normal way to determine strength and
stiffness parameters for the composite material.
They used Henkel and Gilbert’s (1952) method for
rubber membrane corrections in triaxial testing to
estimate the additional confining stress in the soil
created by tensile hoop stress in the PE membrane.
It uses the tensile stiffness of the membrane,
specimen diameter and specimen strains to
estimate the additional lateral or minor principal
stress Δσ3.
Bathurst and Karpurapu (1993) determined the
additional shear strength provided by the PE
membrane hoop stress and resulting increment of
σ3 and this was represented in a simple Mohr-
Coulomb failure envelope as an equivalent
cohesion cr as shown in Figure 6. Rajagopal et al.
(1999) and Chen et al. (2013) adopted the same
approach to characterise the effect of geocells in
their triaxial testing. Chen et al. (2013) noted that
geocells had an insignificant effect on the friction
angle φ′ of the uniform sand tested but cr depended
on the cell size and was caused by hoop tension
that had a more significant effect at low confining
stresses.
Since polymer tensile stiffness can be highly
non-linear, the value adopted in the calculation of
Δσ3 needs to be appropriate for the polymer strain
level and strain rate. Care is also needed that the
geosynthetic tension needed to achieve the cr value
of the composite does not exceed the rupture
strength of the geosynthetic or its connections
appropriate for the duration of loading and
temperature.
To take account of these factors, a 3D FEA
simulation of a triaxial compression test on a
geocell mattress was undertaken with non-linear
stiffness and strength properties set for the geogrid.
The triangular prismatic chambers of the geocell
mattress are 1–2 m in size and too large to be
tested in a prototype triaxial test. Therefore, the
purpose of the 3D FEA model is to simulate a very
large (4.5 m diameter x 9.0 m high) but purely
theoretical triaxial specimen with 9 complete, full-
height chambers as shown in Figure 7. Since such a
triaxial test would not be performed in reality, the
parameters determined from this test simulation
Back-analysis of the Vung Tau full-scale trial... 1123

can be validated instead by back-analysis of full-

scale tests involving geocell mattresses and the
Vung Tau trial provides such an opportunity. This
procedure provides a means to determine the cr
value of a geocell mattress provided that the
chamber plan dimensions are correct and that the
geogrid properties are appropriate for the load
duration, strain rate and temperature of the
installation to be designed.

Shear
stress

Composite φ
geocell strength

Soil
only
cr Figure 7. 3D FEA model of theoretical large triaxial
compression test on geocell mattress.
σ3 Normal stress
Δσ3 Table 1. LEPP MC model input parameters for the
simulated triaxial tests
Effect Composite
of Δσ3 Fill no Fill with
geocell
geogrid geogrid.
mattress.
φ′ 45° 45° 45°
Figure 6. Equivalent cohesion for geocell-soil
c′ (kPa) 0.1 0.1 40 (cr)
composite strength (Bathurst & Karpurapu, 1993).
ψ 15° 15° 15°
The triaxial test simulation was performed using E (MPa)† 5.2, 8.4, 12 10, 12.5, 15 10, 12.5, 15
Plaxis 3D 2018 (Brinkgreve et al., 2018). The soil ν 0.2 0.2 0.2
elements were hidden in Figure 7 to make the γ (kN/m3) 0 0 0
geogrid elements visible but were modelled with †
For each cell pressure (10, 25 and 50 kPa).
10-node tetrahedral elements and a linear elastic
perfectly-plastic (LEPP) constitutive model with Table 2. Geogrid tensile stiffness in simulated
Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criterion with the triaxial tests (12-hour load duration, 25°C)
Axial force N (kN/m) Axial strain ε
input parameters appropriate for the Vung Tau
0 0
granular fill as shown in Table 1. The geogrid was
2 0.0015
modelled with membrane elements (shown in
4 0.0035
yellow in Figure 7) with a non-linear stiffness 8 0.0088
defined by the force-strain relationship shown in 16 0.0242
Table 2 for the horizontal direction and with an 32 0.0667
arbitrary 10% relative stiffness in the vertical 58 0.1332
direction. Full frictional contact (no interface 59 rupture
elements) was assumed between soil and geogrid
and full-strength connections between geogrids as The average σ′3 in the specimen at failure was
provided by the bodkins in the prototype. The base noted in the output of analyses with and without
was fully fixed and cell pressures of 10, 25 and 50 geogrid and the Young’s modulus E for cases with
kPa applied in turn to the side of the specimen, as geogrid adjusted accordingly as shown in Figure 8
shown by the green arrows in Figure 7, as well as and the analyses re-run. The analyses were then
the top. Following application of the cell pressure, repeated without the geogrid and the cr value
the top of the specimen was fixed in the horizontal adjusted to the value shown in Table 2 at which the
direction and strain control used to compress the same failure load as those analyses with geogrid
specimen axially to obtain the mechanical response elements was obtained at all three cell pressures.
in terms of axial displacement and force. This cr value was then adopted for the geocell
mattress in the Vung Tau back-analysis with a
1124 A. Lees et al.

modification for mechanical stabilisation effects as modelled with volume elements with a linear
described in the next section. elastic material model (E = 30 GPa, ν = 0.2) and a
weight density γ of 24 kN/m3. The test load was
20 considered sufficiently high to lift the reaction
beams clear of the lower concrete blocks at their
inner edges which would have changed the load
15
paths to the ground. The possibility for this to
occur was allowed for by including interface
E (MPa)

10 elements with zero tensile strength between the

plate elements of the reaction beams and the lower
w'out geogrid concrete blocks. The loading plate was represented
5 by plate elements in full contact with the ground
with geogrid surface (no interface elements) with a flexural
stiffness EI of 20 MNm2 and a self-weight
0 equivalent to 10 kPa. A rotational restraint was
0 20 40 60 80 100 imposed on the plate elements where they met the
σ′3 (kPa) vertical model boundaries.
Figure 8. Measured and FEA-simulated triaxial results
on limestone aggregate without PE membrane.

5. BACK-ANALYSIS OF VUNG TAU TRIAL

The loading plate could not be considered in
isolation in the test simulation due to its close
proximity to the concrete block Kentledge bearing
on the ground surface and the complex transfer of
load from the Kentledge via the reaction beam to
the loading plate during the test. This required the
whole reaction system to be simulated, as well as
the loading plate, MSL, geocell mattress and
in-situ ground, as shown in Figure 9.
The double symmetry of the problem was Figure 9. 3D FEA model of Vung Tau trial.
utilised to create only one quarter of the geometry
The in-situ ground conditions were simulated as
with vertical boundaries forming the planes of
shown in Table 3 using an LEPP MC model. The
symmetry and displacements perpendicular to
MSL and geocell mattress formed dimensions on
these boundaries fixed at zero. The same
plan of 6 m x 7.5 m (half-values due to the double
displacement conditions were imposed on the
symmetry being utilised) with the MSL extending
remote vertical boundaries placed at least 15 m
to 2 m depth and the geocell mattress a further 1 m
from the centre of the loading plate such that
depth. The TSS model was adopted for the MSL
boundary effects from these were insignificant.
with the parameters shown in Table 4 derived from
Similarly, the base of the mesh was placed at 20 m
large triaxial compression testing on an aggregate
depth and was fixed against displacement in all
of the same characteristics as used in the Vung Tau
three axes.
trial together with the same multi-axial stabilising
The concrete blocks resting on top of the
geogrid (Lees and Clausen, 2019). The five
reaction beams were represented by a constant,
individual layers shown for the MSL in Figure 9
uniform surcharge of 77 kPa applied to the plate
are materials with different zt values denoting the
elements representing the reaction beams. The
elevations of each layer of geogrid such that the
plate elements had a flexural stiffness EI of
strength envelope varied linearly with vertical
300 MNm2 and self-weight included in the 77 kPa
distance from each geogrid elevation as shown in
surcharge. They had a rotational fixity where they
Figure 5.
met the vertical boundaries to the model. The
The geocell mattress was modelled using the
2.4 m high stack of concrete blocks supporting the
LEPP MC model with the input parameters shown
reaction beams and resting on the ground were
in Table 5. The membrane elements used to
Back-analysis of the Vung Tau full-scale trial... 1125

represent the geogrid in the triaxial test simulations predicted to settle up to 7 mm before heaving
described in the previous section recreated the slightly towards the end of the test due to its close
effect of hoop tension but do not recreate the proximity to the loading plate and reaction blocks.
benefit of mechanical stabilisation, as described by Table 3. FEA input parameters for in situ soil
Lees and Clausen (2019). A simple way to include layers in Vung Tau trial
mechanical stabilisation is by means of an apparent Upper Lower
cohesion. Lees (2017) found that adopting an Surface Stiff clay
clay clay
apparent cohesion of up to approximately 20 kPa Drainage Drained Und. Und. Und.
significantly improved the simulation of granular Depth (m) 0–2 2–4 4–10 10–20
layers interacting with stabilising geogrid. It was E (MPa) 80 8.4 12.6 40
found that additional strength in the geocell ν 0.2 0.49 0.49 0.49
mattress layer was needed in the Vung Tau back- φ (deg.) 35 0 0 0
analysis to match the measured performance which c (kPa) 1 23 23 50
could be accounted for by the additional ψ (deg.) 0 0 0 0
mechanical stabilisation from the multi-axial γd (kN/m3) 18 18 18 18
geogrid installed at the base of the geocell mattress K0 0.43 0.75 0.75 0.75
and the interaction between the granular fill and
cell walls. Consequently, an additional 20 kPa Table 4. TSS model input parameters for the MSL
in the Vung Tau trial
apparent cohesion was added to the cr value
MSL
determined owing to the hoop stress effect in the k 5.8
previous section. c0 (kPa) 25
Higher E values were adopted for the MSL and a0 2.5
geocell mattress compared with typical laboratory m 5.8
triaxial test values to reflect the heavier b 2.5
compaction and pre-loading by construction traffic ct (kPa) 260
during preparation of the Vung Tau trial. at 11
The analysis comprised establishing in-situ Apex (kPa) 0.1
stresses with uniform soil layers, then replacing the Δzt (m) 0.35
in-situ soil with the MSL and geocell mattress and E (MPa)† 50
then adding the loading apparatus (loading plate, ν 0.2
concrete blocks, reaction beam and surcharge). In γ (kN/m3) 20
the final stage a vertical displacement was imposed
along the centreline of the loading plate as shown Table 5. FEA input parameters for geocell mattress
in Figure 9. At the same time, a vertical load was in Vung Tau trial
imposed upwards along the centreline of the Geocell mattress
Drainage Drained
reaction beams representing the reaction load that
φ′ 45°
would lift the reaction beams. Trial and error were
c′ (kPa) 60
used to adjust this load to match the output of
ψ 15°
vertical load on the loading plate to achieve the γd (kN/m3) 20
imposed vertical displacement. E (MPa) 80
The load-settlement output from the FEA model ν 0.2
is compared with the measured data in Figure 10.
A very good fit with the data was achieved when A marked change in slope of the load-settlement
simulating the test in this complex way, as curve occurred in the test at around 40 t/m2 while
necessitated by the interactions between the the FEA back-analysis predicted a similar
loading and reaction systems. The settlement occurrence but at lower load of around 35 t/m2
output was obtained as the difference between the indicative of a degree of conservatism in the
vertical displacement at the centre of the loading analysis method employed.
plate and that at the ground surface 1.3 m beyond
the end of the loading beam corresponding with the 6. CONCLUSIONS
approximate location of the support block to the The composite mechanical properties of a geocell
reference beam used to measure settlements. This mattress in terms of an equivalent cohesion were
was necessary since this reference point was determined by 3D FEA simulation of a theoretical
1126 A. Lees et al.

large triaxial compression test on a specimen 7. REFERENCES

containing at least 9 complete chambers of a
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Kumarswamy. S., Swolfs,
geocell mattress. The geogrid was modelled as
W.M., and Foria, F. (2018). Plaxis 2018. Delft.
membrane elements with the specific product
Bathurst, R.J., and Karpurapu, R. (1993). Large-
properties including a non-linear stiffness and
scale triaxial compression testing of geocell-
rupture strength.
reinforced granular soils. Geotechnical Testing
Load (t/m2) Jnl. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 296–303.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BSI (2016). Code of practice for strengthened
0 /reinforced soils and other fills. BS 8006-
1:2010+A1:2016, British Standards Institution,
London.
Settlement (mm)

10
Chen, R.H., Haung, Y.W., and Haung, F.C. (2013).
Confinement effect of geocells on sand samples
20
under triaxial compression. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes Vol. 37, pp. 35–44.
30 Test data
Henkel, D.J., and Gilbert, G.C. (1952). The effect
FEA of rubber membranes on the measured triaxial
40
compression strength of clay samples.
Géotechnique Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 20–29.
50 Lees, A.S. (2017). Simulation of geogrid
Figure 10. Comparison of measured and simulated stabilisation by finite element analysis.
load-settlement behaviour in Vung Tau trial. Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
This equivalent cohesion was adopted for the Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul. pp. 1377–
geocell mattress in the back-analysis of the Vung 1380.
Tau full-scale load test on a trial working platform. Lees, A.S., and Clausen, J. (2019). The strength
An additional apparent cohesion was included to envelope of granular soil stabilised by multi-
take account of mechanical stabilisation of the fill axial geogrid in large triaxial tests. Canadian
within the geocell mattress due to interaction with Geotechnical Journal. In press.
the multi-axial stabilising geogrid installed at the Ong, R., Song, W.K., Minh, T.N., and Thinh, P.X.
base and with the geogrid of the cell walls. (2011). Geocell mattress for heavy duty
A new constitutive model specifically designed working platform over soft soil. Geotec Hanoi
for aggregates stabilised with layers of multi-axial 2011, pp. 153–158.
stabilising geogrid was used to model the MSL Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., and Madhavi
overlying the geocell mattress. Its input parameters Latha, G. (1999). Behaviour of sand confined
were determined by large triaxial compression with single and multiple geocells. Geotextiles
testing on an aggregate of similar characteristics to and Geomembranes, Vol. 17, pp. 171–181.
the fill material used in the trial together with the
specific multi-axial stabilising geogrid product
used in the construction of the MSL at Vung Tau.
Using these new approaches to characterise the
mechanical behaviour of the MSL and geocell
mattress, it was possible to perform an accurate
back-analysis of the Vung Tau full-scale loading
test provided that the complex interactions between
the ground and loading system were taken into
account.
Similar material modelling and parameterisation
approaches could be taken to simulate and predict
the performance of working platforms constructed
from mechanically stabilised layers and geocell
mattresses.