Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Civil Engineers
Ground Improvement 163
November 2010 Issue GI4
Pages 207215
doi: 10.1680/grim.2010.163.4.207
Paper 900035
Received 12/10/2009
Accepted 21/07/2010
Keywords: embankments/
geotextiles, membranes & geogrids/
piles
Yan Zhuang
Nottingham Centre for
Geomechanics, University of
Nottingham, UK
Ed A. Ellis
University of Plymouth;
formerly University of
Nottingham, UK
Hai-Sui Yu
Nottingham Centre for
Geomechanics, University of
Nottingham, UK
MSc, PhD,
E. A. Ellis
NOTATION
a
pile cap width
h
embankment height
K
earth pressure coefficient ratio of horizontal to
vertical effective stress (9h /9v )
K0
initial earth pressure coefficient at rest
Kp
Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient
k
stiffness of the tensile reinforcement
l
span of the tensile reinforcement
N
number of tensile reinforcement layers
s
centre-to-centre spacing of pile caps
ec , em settlement at the surface of the embankment (see
Figure 1)
r
maximum sag of the tenile reinforcement
s
maximum settlement of the subsoil between the pile
caps (see Figure 1)
c
vertical stress on the pile caps
G
vertical stress in the embankment including the effects
of arching
r
vertical stress loading the tensile reinforcement
s
vertical stress on the subsoil
ji
frictional strength at the reinforcementsoil interface.
1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of arching of granular soil over an area where
there is partial loss of support from an underlying stratum has
Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4
Zhuang et al.
207
Embankment
ec
Semicircular
arch
s/2
em
Midpoint
Infill
material
beneath
arch
Centreline
Vertical
interfaces
z
(s a)/2
Pile cap
Soft subsoil
Pile
Figure 1. Piled embankment showing potential arching mechanisms (Terzaghi, 1943; Hewlett and Randolph, 1988), and notation for
geometry and settlement () used in this paper
Ground surface
Centreline
Underground
structure
Midpoint
s/2
B
(a)
p*
Rigid support
from half pile cap
Uniform stress
from subsoil s
Ultimate
state
*
Maximum arching
(b)
Zhuang et al.
Unit weight:
kN/m3
Youngs modulus:
MN/m2
Poissons
ratio
Cohesion intercept:
kN/m2
Friction
angle: 8
Kinematic dilation
angle at yield: 8
17.0
0.5
25
0.20
30
s/h
10
08
10
06 15
04
20
h 10 m
25
02
35
50
00
00
02
04
06
08
s/(s a): %
65
80
10
12
14
Zhuang et al.
209
20
at the pile cap rather than the crown (top of arch) for large s
(Hewlett and Randolph, 1988). This trend is supported for
s 2.0 m, where there would be increased tendency for failure
at the crown. Furthermore K is high at and below z 0.5(s-a)
for this case.
h/s 50
175
15
z/s
125
10
K0
075
Kp
05
05(s a)
00
20
Figure 6(a) shows that for (h/s) . 1.5, (s,ult /h) reduces slowly
as h increases, but when (h/s) , 1.5, (s,ult /h) increases
rapidly, tending towards 1.0. This behaviour was previously
noted in Figure 4. The additional data shown here (variation of
s and friction and dilation angles) only show two significant
differences: for s 3.5 m, the value at large h is slightly larger,
and the non-zero dilation angle shows less dramatic increase
when (h/s) , 1.5.
15
z/s
2
K
(a)
h/s 14
10
10
K0
08
Kp 06
05
04
05(s a)
00
2
K
(b)
20
h/s 29, 10
10
14
s 20 m
s 25
s 35
s 25, 40
s 25, 22
08
10
s,ult/h
z/s
15
07
05
06
04
04
02
00
2
K
(c)
00
Eq 3:
s 35
08
25
20 m
Eq 1,
s 25 m
06
s,ult/s
2
h/s
(a)
210
04
02
No arching
s/s h/s
Legend as
subplot (a)
00
0
h/s
(b)
Zhuang et al.
s (A AB C)h
N=m2
Kp 1
; B
s Kp 1
; C B1
2h K p 2
and a=s
c a s s a hs
N=m
s h
1
s s K 2p a=s 1 a=s
dimensionless
Zhuang et al.
211
20
Legend as
subplot (b)
s,ult/(s a): %
15
10
05
3.1. Analyses
There are relatively well-established methods to account for the
load that a sagging tensile component (e.g. a geotextile or
geogrid) can carry in a two-dimensional situation, for instance
assuming that the deformed shape is a catenary or parabola.
00
h/s
(a)
25
s 20 m
s 25
s 35
s 25, 40
s 25, 40
20
(em/ec)ult
15
10
05
h/s
(b)
Zhuang et al.
60
GRC (embankment
without reinforcement)
50
40
s: kN/m2
30
N=m2
s G r
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
s: mm
(a)
100
120
140
60
50
GRC (embankment
without reinforcement)
GRC effect of reinforcement
(prediction, Eq 5)
s: kN/m2
40
30
Embankment with
reinforcement (FE analysis)
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
s: mm
(b)
100
120
140
r 21
3
k r
l l
N=m2
h: m
Embankment height, h
Pile cap centre-to-centre spacing, s
Reinforcement stiffness, k
Reinforcement interface, ji
No. of reinforcement layers, N 3 k
1.0
3.5
10.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
s: m
k : MN/m
ji
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
3.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
6
6
6
6
6
12
6
332
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
Table 2. Summary of analyses presented in Figure 9 and labels for charts. The parameter which is
varied is highlighted in bold, compared to the standard case (h 3.5 m, s 2.5 m, k 6 MN/m,
ji 0)
Zhuang et al.
213
Eq 6: s 25 m, k 6 MN/m
Figure 9(b) shows the effect of variation of pile cap spacing (s),
reinforcement stiffness (k), and the number of layers of
reinforcement (N) when h 3.5 m. Corresponding predictions
from Equation 6 are shown for the new values of s and k.
Reducing or increasing s has a corresponding effect on r (see
also Figure 6(b)). When s 2.0 m the data point agrees quite
well with Equation 6, but when s 3.5 m Equation 6 is slightly
conservative in the prediction of sag.
h 10 m
150
h 35 m
100
: mm
h1m
50
0
0
10
20
30
r: kN/m2
(a)
Eq 6: s 35 m, k 6 MN/m
250
200
s 25 m, k 6 MN/m
s 25 m, k 12 MN/m
s 35 m
: mm
s 20 m, k 6 MN/m
150
N3
100
k 12 MN/m
s 20 m
50
0
0
10
20
30
r: kN/m2
(b)
1=3
r l
:
r 0 36l
k
Zhuang et al.
Zhuang et al.
215