Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 30,

2003 Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1 880653 -60 5 (Set); ISSN 1098 6189 (Set)

Geosynthetic

Embankment

Stability on Soft Ground Considering Reinforcement

Strain

Kwang

Yeol Lee

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dongseo University Busan, South Korea

Chin Gyo Chung

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Busan Technical College Busan, South Korea

Jae Hong Hwang

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dongseo University Busan, South Korea

Jin Won Hong

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dongseo University Busan, South Korea

Yong Soo Ahn

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dongseo University Busan, South Korea

ABSTRACT The existing ways of designing embankment using geosynthetic have been focusing on soil strain rather than reinforcement strain. With regard to destruction to embankment using geosynthetic reinforcement, the behaviors of geosynthetic reinforcement and soil are the same at the initial stress phase, whereas they make a gap in strain as stress increases, This issue may have a big impact on reinforcement as a critical factor of geosynthetic reinforcement design in earth structures. This study shows reinforcement stress and soil stress in embankment reinforced by PET Mat on soft ground through the quantitative analysis on strain behavior. As the result, reinforcement strain greatly depends on the tensile strength of reinforcement, regarding destruction. The maximum stress on reinforcement by external loads will not exceed the yield tensile strength and it will be ideal when reinforcement stress is higher than the stress in soil of embankment. In addition. the safety factor with shear destruction of embankment will increase together with the yield tensile strength of reinforcement, though the factor will be unchanged after reinforcement strain matches soil strain. KEY WORDS : Embankment; Soft ground; Reinforcement;

KNTRODUCTION Embankment on soft ground will have shear stress from vertical load. If the ground does not have enough shear strength, shear failure may occur within or in the lower part of embankment, Soft ground improve method is, therefore, selected for bearing-capacity against failure and embankment stability, such as replacement method, consolidation method, pile bearing method, light-weight embankment method, reinforcement method, etc. Especially, the method of reinforcing sotI ground with highly polymerized geosynthetic is considered more efficient and costeffective (1999, Korean Geotechnical Society). In case of embankment upon geosynthetic installed on soft ground, reinforcement will improve stability and bearing-capacity again lowerpart shear failure and prevent shear failure of embankment. Reinforcement may also decrease horizontal and vertical displacement of lower-part ground, diminishing differential settlements. In general, analytic studies on geosynthetic embankment have been based on Critical Equilibrium theory, providing some problems of applying Critical Equilibrium theory to complicated soil-geosynthetic system analysis. The main issue is that the strain effect from interaction between embankment soil and geosynthetic is not considered. Therefore, the design of stabilizing soft ground with geosynthetic requires soilgeosynthetic strain to be considered. This study will compare and analyze the difference in behavior and stress

PET Mat; Stress; Geosynthetics.

No: 2003~SSK-03

Lee

Page: I of 6

573

from reinforcement strength gap, with an effort to complement the existing reinforcement (geosynthetic) design on embankment. In addition, Finite Difference Method (FDM) will be applied to geosynthetic behavior which was analyzed as elastic body, measuring strength and plastic behavior in embankment and suggesting design method focusing on strain difference between soil and reinforcement at the reinforcement installed place. Mechanical Embankment Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforcement in

Anchorage behavior As Fig. 3 explains, anchorage behavior is composed of tangent force recovered through soil-reinforcement (geosynthetic) friction. This mechanism is the fundamental to reinforcement system. Equation (I) shows that surface friction resistance of reinforcement element r is equated with opposite tensile strength, dT, allowing reinforcement in embankment, not pull-out (Bourdeau et al. 1994, Gotteland 1991). dT=2 r ds

(1)

Geosynthetic reinforcement is quite different from the existing reinforcement systems mentioned above when it comes to the large reinforcement strain. This provides a great flexibility from low inertia moment and relatively low modulus of elasticity. Therefore, only tensile behavior is recognized for geosynthetic. The reason is that bending moment and compressive strength are quite low compared to stress, For all passive reinforcements, geosynthetic tensile reinforcement will require displacement threshold at the soil-inclusion interface to get reinforcement optimized. Fig. 3 shows geosynthetic strain in embankment subjected to loads. Strain is much higher in the middle zone of discontinuity, decreasing at the ends and displacement further increased.

T+ --7 0 ds

T+dT

Zone of discontinuity Active zone Passive zone

Fig. 3 Anchorage equilibrium of a geosynthetic element According Fig. 4, the behavior at the soil-inclusion interface was defined by the perfect elastic-plastic model. In this model, working state stress is associated with the stress based on mohr-coulomb failure criterion, @g and Cg is soil-reinforcement friction and adhesion respectively. Cg is usually ignored. In general, soil strength decreasing factor( p ) is defined out of unique features of soil, providing optimal friction at soli-inclusion interface at the range of O.S(non-woven)-l(woven or geogrid). Geosynthetic for embankment reinforcement has this factor p at the range of 0.8-I.

Fig. I Deformed geosynthetic sheet in a slope Tensile behavior In general, geosynthetic tensile stress has been modeled based on quazilinear elasticity principle and elastic-plastic model from brittle failure. Fig. 2 shows typical curve of Tension force-Strain from geosynthetic tensile stress test. Three parameters can be deduced here, which are critical factors of geosynthetic reinforcement behavior. The stiffness modulus of linear part before destruction is the stiffness modulus J (kN/m) of geosynthetic tensile strength test and the tensile strength at the time of destruction is the one of this geosynthetic. And its strain means destruction strain. Tensi n force T (kN/m) t Tr

U (mm)
c nt WW t
TP @?4

cg

Strain

a sheet

Fig. 2 Model of tensile test on geosynthetic

Fig. 4 Characteristics

of the soil-inclusion

interface

No: 2003~SSK-03

Lee

Page: 2 of 6

574

Conditions

& Materials

The earth structures chosen for this study is the embankment using geosynthetic upon soft ground and the soft ground has been improved via SCP (Sand Compaction Pile) method, which allowed the underneath soft ground to be strengthened in the center and left of embankment. Zone l(subground), zone Z(subground of slop of the embankment) and zone 3(subground of top of the embankment), as shown Table 1 and Fig. 5. In this embankment, bi-direction PET Mat was installed 40.lm in parallel with the embankment after the underneath ground was improved, and banked to 8.5m above, when the reinforcement tensile strength is 50, 100, 130, 170, 320kNim. Fig.5 describes its analytic section and the underneath ground has different soil integers per interval. In the stability analysis on embankment, design load was train load SOkNim. The materials of embankment and underneath ground integers are as follows in Table 1 and the result of reinforcement (PET Mat) stress-strain test is provided in Fig. 6. Table 1 Soil Properties of embankment and subsurface ground

500 400 -g 300 !3 . , -2 200 g VI 100 0 0 5 Strain(%) Fig. 6 Stress-strain behavior of woven PET Mat (Tensile strength 320kN/m) Bi-direction woven PET Mat has been selected for reinforcement and analyzed by changing its tensile strength as 50, 100, 130, 170, 320kN/m, strain and stress behaviors of soil-reinforcement (PET Mat) being investigated at the reinforcement location. It is also analyzed how the safety factor has been changed against embankment shear failure as reinforcement (PET Mat) tensile strength increased. This study makes use of ITASCA FLAC ver.4.0, FDM program. Ver. 4.0 has analysis time shortened and is known to provide almost real value from stability analysis on slope embankment, compared to other programs. Analysis Results When change was made to the tensile strength of PET Mat as 50, 100, high-strength reinforcement installed-base 130, 170, 320kN/m, experienced slope or toe failure and low-strength reinforcement experienced base failure. In order to identify when failure phase is changed, tensile strength has been changed per IOkNim interval. The result is that IO-120kN/m reinforcement experienced base failure and 130-320kNim reinforcement experienced slope or toe failure. As reinforcement (PET Mat) strength was increased, in-embankment shear strain has been diminished. The safety factor against embankment shear failure was 1.32 prior to PET Mat reinforcement installation, maybe resulting from ground bearing-capacity achieved through lower part improvement. When reinforcement of various tensile strengths is installed, strain and stress of soil-reinforcement (PET Mat) and its safety factor change will be measured for optimized reinforcement design. Figs. 7-8 present the embankment shear strains with IOOkNim and 320kNim reinforcement used for each. 10

Fig. 5 Analytic Section Dimension

No: 2003-SSK-03

Lee

Page: 3 of 6

575

As shown by Fig. 9, the soil of PET Mat installed-base will have the shear stress at most 164kN/m2 in the center. In case of 50, 100 and 13OkN/m reinforcements being installed, the stress will be as high as tensile strength at the location of PET Mat, not soil shear stress, which will tend to be failured. PET Mat with tensile strength higher than 17OkN/m is considered good as it is higher than soil shear stress. And 320kNim PET Mat will be over-design because PET Mat only stays at 227kNim in the embankment. Therefore, considering in-embankment soil shear stress and cost-effectiveness, the reinforcement tensile strength should be designed to be higher than 17OkNlm.

PET Mat (SOkN/m)

+So~l(lOOkN/m) --O+Sod + PET Mat (I OOkN/m) (I3OkNim) PET Ma, (I 30kNh) (I7OkNim)

Fig. 7 Embankment

Shear Strain (PET Mat - 1OOkN/m)

+Sod

-H-PETMat(I7OkNim) ---+-Ssod + (32OkNim) PET Mat (320kN/m)

10

30 20 PET Mat Scope (m)

40

50

Fig. 10 Comparison of Soil-PET Mat Displacement at the location of PET Mat (horizontal) 2

Fig. 8 Embankment

Shear Strain (PET Mat - 320kNim)

250

+ i --tSOll ~ *PET I + *PET + (320KNhl) PET (I 70uh) (I 30KN/m) PET (I OOKNlm) + + + *PET b -B-PET W +

PET Mat (SOkN/m) Sod (I OOkNim) PET Mat (I OOkNim) Sod (I 30kNim) Mat (I3OkNim) Sod (I 7OkNim) eat (I7okNh) Sod (320kNim) PET Mat (320kNim)

10

20

30

40

50

PET Mat Scope (m) Fig. 11 Comparison of Soil-PET Mat Displacement at the location of PET Mat (vertical) 20 30 As explained in Figs, 10-11, change in PET Mat tensile strength will make the soil-PET Mat displacement altered. The biggest displacement will happen in the shear strain failure zone mentioned before. The soilPET Mat displacement was much bigger in low-strength rather than highstrength reinforcement installed-base, such as when the reinforcement lower than the stress analysis result, 17OkN/m was installed, the displacement became magnified to 4.5-10.5 cm. This may result from the fact that PET Mat tensile strength did not reach soil shear stress, causing

PET Mat Distance (m)

Fig. 9 Soil-PET Mat Stress Distribution at the location of PET Mat

576

reinforcement tensile displacement that is strengthened is called will be 170kN/m, with

destruction. So if the tensile strength of unchanged even after reinforcement being the optimal strain tensile strength (Tos), Tos soil-PET Mat displacement considered.

1.6

F.S 1.4

1.3

( 0 100 Reinforcement 200 300 400

Tensile Strength (kN/m)

0 0 100 200 300 400 Fig. 14 F.S of Design Tensile Strength Safety factors have been analyzed for various reinforcements from SOkNim low-strength reinforcement (usually used for isolation) to 320kNim high-strength reinforcement. No-reinforcement installed-base was 1.32 and SOkN/m low-strength reinforcement was 1.47, both of which show high reinforcement effects. This may result from the fact that bearing-capacity has been achieved through soft ground improvement method. Safety factors tended to increase linearly with the reinforcement strength increase. When the strength was higher than 17OkN/m, however, the safety factor kept unchanged as 1.57. This meets the minimum requirement of 1.5 from USEPA recommendation. Considering that soil-reinforcement displacement is less than 2 cm and displacement gaps vertical and horizontal have the minimum value 0.119-0.145cm with the reinforcement higher than the optimal strain tensile strength, reinforcement with optimal strain tensile strength will be the best choice as far as structural stability and cost-effectiveness are concerned. CONCLUSION Tensile strength of PET Mat (kN/m) Fig. 13 Vertical Strain of two phases As the embankment of low-strength reinforcement (PET Mat) has a big soil-reinforcement displacement, this reinforcement (PET Mat) cannot have the same behavior as soil. So it is anticipated that slope failure will occur out of stress concentration due to embankment differential settlements. With PET Mat of tensile strength higher than soil shear stress, the displacement may be less than 2 cm and strength increase will not have little effect on soil-PET Mat displacement. Figs. 12-13 show the displacement gap at the soil-inclusion interface. The gap based on reinforcement strength is linear and almost the same at the PET Mat strength higher than 17OkN/m. In addition, in vertical directions, PET Mat higher than 17OkNim had the displacement gap increased by 0.04cm. Considering displacement gap unchanged even after reinforcement strengthened, the optimal strain tensile strength was also 170kN/m. The reason of displacement gap at the same location is that each material has different modulus of elasticity. And the displacement gap may depend on adhesion, friction and strength of in-embankment soil and PET Mat. 1. In the comparison of soil-PET Mat stress distribution in embankment, PET Mat with tensile strength lower than the optimal strain tensile strength (Tos) will have little reinforcement effects for that its tensile strength is lower than soil shear stress. 2. There was embankment failure due to reinforcement strength gap and soil-PET Mat displacement gap at the location of reinforcement. When reinforcement lower than 13OkN/m is installed, base failure occured and in the case of being higher than I3OkN/m, slop or toe failure occured. And with the reinforcement lower than the optimal strain tensile strength (Tos), displacement of soil-PET Mat became larger than 3 cm, both vertically and horizontally. All of them give cause to differential settlements and shear failure due to geosynthetic zone of discontinuity enlarged. 3. With a optimal strain tensile strength higher than that of PET Mat, soilPET Mat displacement gap at the location of PET Mat became wider. The reason may be that PET Mat having got tensile stress in the case of embankment shear failure results in tensile strain which leads to geosythetic creep strain and plastic behavior. 4. According to comparative analysis on the stress, displacement, displacement gap and safety factor of soil-PET Mat at the location of PET Mat, the optimal strain tensile strength (Tos) is the best suitable for the

Tensile strength of PET Mat (kN/m) Fig. 12 Horizontal Strain of two phases

No: 2003~SSK-03

Lee

577

Page: 5 of 6

design tensile strength. In designing the in-embankment PET Mat, it is necessary to measure stress, displacement, displacement gap and safety factor of soil-PET Mat at the location of PET Mat and also consider the PET Mat installation location. A further study upon reinforcement (PET Mat) design considering cost-effectiveness could be carried out, as if differential settlements of very soft ground is expected, or if multiple layers of isolation reinforcement (PET Mat) are installed, etc. REFERENCES C.Beneito, Ph. Gotteland (2001). Three-dimensional numerical modeling of geosynthetics FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, A. A. Balkema Publishers, pp 19 l- 192 Chen, R.H., and Chameau, J.L., (1982) The Three Dimensional Limit Equation Analysis of Slopes, Geotechnique, Vol. 32, No. I Giroud, J.P., and Beech, J.F., (1989) Stability of Soil Layers on Geosynthetic Lining Systems, in Geosynthetics 89, IFAI, San Diego, CA Guglielmetti, J.L.. Koerner, G.R. and Battino, F.S.(1996), Geotextile reinforcement of soft landfill process sludge to facilitate final closure: An instrumented case history, Proc. GRI-9 conference on Geosynthetics in Infrastructure Enhancement and Remediation, GII, Philadephia, pp 195 - 211 Koerner, R.M.(1996), The state of the practice regarding in-situ monitoring of geosynthetics, Proc. I European Geosynthetics Conference, Netherlands Lee, K.Y. et. al., (1997) Sorption Capacity of Marine Clay and Weathered Soil under Kimpo Metropolitan Landfill to Heavy Metals and Inorganic Contaminants International Symposium on Environmental Engineering, ISEE Conference, 1997. 9, pp 58

No: 2003-SSK-03

Lee

Page: 6 of 6

578