Geosynthotics "91 Conference Atlanta, USA Case History of a 9 m High Geogrid Reinforced Reta with Cohesive Soi W. J. Burwash Golder Associates Ltd., Canada J. D. Frost _ Purdue University, USA jing Wall Backfilled ABSTRACT A9 m high retaining wall reinforced with geogrids and backfilled with cohesive soil was constructed in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1984. The wall performed aatiafactorily for 16 months when signs of settlement were firet observed in the fill behind the wall. Conditions gradually deteriorated and over the next 22 months settlement of the backfill approached 0.9 m in one area. The top of the retaining wall rotated outwards about the toe and a deflection of 310 mm was recorded with a Slope indicator over a 17 month period. In June, 1987 approximately 3 years after completion of construction, the upper 6 m of wall was replaced with a free standing 2h:1v slope. Thie paper deacribes the only known documented case history of a major geogrid reinforced retaining wall backfilled with cohesive soil. Details are given for design of the wall, its construction and performance, and causes for its failure are postulated. INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1983 tenders were called for construction of the geotechnical components of a commercial development in Calgary, Alberta. Design called for construction of a retaining wall to support an asphalt surfaced parking lot. The wall was up to 9m in height and was to consist of vertical steel H-piles, timber lagging and deadman anchors. An alternative design using high strength geogrids (Tensar SR2) to replace the deadman anchors but still using the B-pile and timber lagging facade was accepted by the owner on the basis of lowest price. As a part of the alternative design, it was decided to use low plastic clay till as backfill to the retaining wall. Drainage was to be provided by a 600 mm wide zone of granular fil] adjacent to the timber lagging. A 75 mm void was to be constructed between the geogrid facing and the H-pile and timber lagging to allow for possible post-conatruction movement. Foundation soils consisted of a deep deposit of very stiff low plastic clay till with the groundwater table well below the ground surface. ‘The wall was constructed in the spring of 1984 and performed satisfactorily until September 1985 when signa of settlement were first observed. Conditions gradually deteriorated and in January 1986 a slope indicator was placed on the face of the wall to monitor outward movement. Subsequent measurements showed that the wall facing was rotating about ite base and after 17 months the deflection at the top of the wall was 310 mm. Settlement of the parking lot behind the retaining wall was observed to continue over the same period and was estimated to be up to 0.9 m by June, 1987. At that time the upper 6 m of the wall was replaced with a free standing 2h:1v slope. 485Geosynthetics ‘81 Conference Atlanta, USA DESIGN DETAILS The geogrid reinforced wall consisted of two segments called the north and northwest walls oriented at an angle of 142° as shown on Figure i with a total length of 59.4 m and a maximum height of 9.0m. Design details are given on Figures 2 and 3 and are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Noam was 27.01 N ——— + oo see: { ¢ boy \ J-— east watt 136.01 L. P_SOUTHEAST WALL (7. 4 ~—t sour wal 07.7) nore: (27.0) DENOTES LENGTH OF WALL IN METERS SECTION A - A'S SHOWN ON FIGURE 2 + Figure 1 Key Plan ‘The H-piles consisted of W250 x 49 steel sections placed in 600 mm diameter augered holes which were about 3 m deep; the holes were then backfilled with 20 MPa concrete. The H-pilea were positioned at 2.2 m centres. ‘The pressure treated timber lagging was 75 mm thick and 150 mm wide and positioned on the inside of pile flanges and held in place by wooden blocks wedged into the opposite flange. ‘The wall ¥einforcement consisted of Tensar SR2 which is a high strength oriented polymer grid which was firat marketed commercially in the early 1980's. The wall was reinforced by up to 10 layers of geogrid with lengths up to 6.8 m. The geogrids were incorporated into the wall design using the "wrap around" method shown in Section B-B’ of Figure 3; a temporary spacer was placed between the H-piles and the geogrids to produce a 75 mm wide void which, if necessary, could accommodate creep of the geogrids. Geogrid sheets were joined together with a Bodkin joint consisting of a 6 mm diameter rebar woven through the ribs of the geogrid. The “double layering” technique reduced the quantity of required geogrid over the single layering method. ‘The lower layer extended 2 m beyond the active pressure zone and was separated from the upper layer by a minimum of 300 mm of soil; the upper layer was extended back to give a length of geogrid (L) to height of wall (H) ratio (L/#) of.at least 0.7. The outer 600 ma of oil contained by the geogrids was granular fill which provided drainage. The top layer of geogrid was fastened to the top of the H-pile so that the soil was fluah with the back of the wall. ‘The back£i1l consisting of low plastic clay till (typical liquid limit of 30 and plastic limit of 15 and 25% sand, 50% ailt and 25¢ clay sizes) was similar to the foundation soils and was compacted to a minimum of 95% standard Proctor dry density. The earthworks was compacted under the scrutiny of a full-time inspector who conducted 105 in situ density tests; whore tests did not meet the standard, the soil was given further compaction and retested until the density requirement was met. A second wall termed the “south, southeast and east wall" (collectively called the south wall) waa constructed at the same time as the north-northwest wall using similar methods but with some significant differences; the maximum height was 5.4m 486weosymnenes ¥1 von At inta, USA (ORIGINAL GROUND PROFILE SECTION B - 8" 1S SHOWN ON FIGURE 3 so, a ral a t Se a PROFILE OF PREPARED | surrace—————" | | to LAYERS TENSAR GEOsRIO sRo—! FE 52 = Z SECTION A- A" all 48 50 ELEVATION IN METERS [LOCAL DATUM — : 25000 (25 GRIDS) 4000 000 4000. 4000 6000. [Renna] ono] eros] [7 sas! “1a criost [1 crams Jv cas] SLOPE INDICATOR CASING—~ PLAN OF NORTH WALL Figure 2. Plan and elevation of North wall (compared to 9.0 m) and the embedded depth of H-piles was 8 m (compared to 3 m) at maximum wall heights with spacings varying from 1.5 to 2.2 m (compared to 2.2m). It ie significant that the south, southeast and east walls guffered no distress. DETAILS OF ANALYSIS External stability Googrid walls must satisfy the same external stability criteria as conventional gravity retaining walle (Tensar, 1986): (i) sliding (ii) overturning (iii) bearing Capacity and (iv) global stability. ‘The length of reinforcement waa aelected ao that a factor of safety of at least 1.5 wa0s provided to prevent the possibility of the entire reinforced mass being mobilized outwarde by the force of the lateral pressure. The lateral earth pressure was calculated using the Rankine theory with an angle of internal friction ($) of 30° 487Guosynthetics ‘91 Conference Atlanta, USA -GEOGRIO / GEOTEXTILE 7 SECURED AGAINST 2 PANEL ; eos GEOTEXTILE OVERLYING a \ emgemenn lane arr ‘sookn aon —— = — DETAIL I SEE DETAL 2 ELEVATION IN METERS (LOCAL DATUM) st PROOF ROLLED PREPARED 50. ‘GROUND SURFRCE PRIOR TO PLACING FILL 434 we50 X 49 SOLDIER PILE IN GOODIA. GROUTED SHAFT 48 DETAIL 2 SECTION 6 - B Liremporany SPACER Figure 3 Typical section and design details The critical sliding surface was found to be between the geogrid and the compacted clay; an interaction coefficient of 0.6 was used based in part upon the findings of the Bolton Institute of Technology (1982) and partly by experience with glacial tills in the Calgary area. Using these input parameters it was determined that a ratio of 0.7 for length of reinforcement to height of wall (L/H) was required. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 is normally used to prevent the possibility of overturning about the toe of the wall. ¥or L/H of 0.7 the overturning requirement was exceeded. In addition, for L/H of 0.7 the resultant earth pressure force lies within the middie one-third of the base width to preclude theoretical tension at the base of the reinforced zone. The maximum bearing pressure at the toe of the wall was calculated to be about 315 kPa. Assuming an undrained shear strength of 200 kPa for the very stiff foundation soils, the ultimate bearing capacity exceeds the imposed toe pressure by a factor greater than 3 which is consistent with normal practice. Conventional stability analyses showed that the factor of safety with respect to global or deep seated shear failure exceeded the conventional minimum factor of safety of 1.5. 488Geosynthetics ‘91 Conference Atlanta, USA Internal stability Internal stability ensures that the geogrid reinforcement is positioned so that tension failure of the geogrids and pullout from the soil mase beyond the assumed failure plane is prevented. Tensar geogrid SR2 has a peak tensile strength of 79 kN/m but a long term design load of 29.2 kli/m is used in permanent engineered structures to ensure that deformation of the structure remains within acceptable limits over its service life. A factor of safety of 1.5 was then applied to the long term design load to give the allowable design strength. The geogrids were then spaced so that the tension induced in the geogrids was less than the allowable strength. The top geogrid was placed 1.2 m below finished grade and the bottom layer at the level of the ground surface outside the toe of the wall. The lower geogrid layers were spaced as close as 300 mm apart. Adequate anchorage length was required eo that the geogrids would not pull out of the soil behind the assumed failure plane based on the Rankine method of analysis. The L/i ratio of 0.7 required to enaure adequate resistance against sliding provided more than sufficient pullout resistanc HISTORY OF EVENTS A history of events from completion of the wall until its reconatruction three years laterlis discussed below and ia given in abbreviated form on Table 1. TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF EVENTS DaTE ‘TIME FROM COMPLETION EVENT OF CONSTRUCTION May 1984 ° Wall completed Sept. 1985 16 monthe cracks first observed in asphalt and obvious signs of settlement noticed. Feb. 1986 21 months Slope indicator installed. settle- ment noticeably greater. Aug. 1986 27 months Parking lot cordoned off for safety Nov. 1986 30 months Additional site investigation per- formed gune 1987 37 months Wall reconstructed ‘The wall was completed in May 1984. Signs of diatress were first observed 16 months later in September 1985; settlement of the ground surface and cracking of the asphalt pavement was readily apparent near the. juncture of the north and northwest. walls. Conditions gradually deteriorated and wall movement was suspected. In February, 1986 a slope indicator was placed on the outside face of the wall (see Figure 2) where ground surface settlement was greatest. Readings were taken over the next 17 months and the results are plotted on Figures 4 and 5. ‘The results showed that the facade was rotating about the toe and that the rate of displacement was in general constant. After 17 months the facade had moved 310 mm which was 3.4% of the 489Geosynthetics ‘91 Conference ‘Atlanta, USA DISPLACEMENT (mm) od s2, 80120160200 240 280320 aa = Z3 3 = Zs ze LEGEND, & © FEB 66 ao (© 03 APR 86 + 4 05 MAY 86 2 12 AUG 86 . = 15 JUN 67 8 Figure 4 Displacement of wall va. depth 320 DISPLACEMENT (mm) 280 240 200 60 ASSUMED TREND tJ OF DISPLACEMENT 80 WATT ITATSTO 1986 1987 DATE Figure 5 Displacement of top wall vs. time 490Geosynthetics ‘91 Conference Atlanta, USA height of the wall or 2.0° rotation about the toe. Tt is noted that these measure— ments were initiated some 21 months after end of construction and § months after the first evidence of distress; thus, actual displacements were most likely larger. By August of 1986 it was apparent that the distress showed no sign of abating and the Wall was designated as unsafe and the parking lot near the wall was cordoned off. In November, 1986 three boreholes were put down behind the juncture of the north and northwest walls. ‘The resulte showed that the clay backfiil had softened to a depth of about 3m. Construction records showed that the average moisture content of the clay backfill at placement was 10.58 which was 4.08 dry of the optimum value of 14.5%. However, in comparison, the moisture content determined on samples from the boreholes which’ were put down 30 months after completion of construction showed a noticeable increase particularly in the upper 3 m where values were typically 1.5 to 3.0% above optimum or 5.5 to 7.08 above the placement moisture content. The increase was less apparent at depth and less noticeable at increasing distances from the wall. In dune 1987 the upper 6 m of the wall was removed and replaced with a free standing 2h:lv slope. The lower 3m of the wall was left in place. A site survey conducted juat before reconstruction showed maximum settlement in the order of 0.9 m (approximately 10% of the height of the fill). Maximum settlement at the back of the reinforced zone was about 0.5 m or about 5.5% of the height of the fill. DIScUSsTON When thie wall was constructed (1984) it was the highest known Tensar reinforced wall in existence. Previously a 7 m high wall had been constructed in England using Tenear geogride (Netlon, 1983). A 12 m high geogrid reinforced slope had been constructed in 1982-1963 near Waterdown, Ontario (Busbridge, 1984) and was the first known use of geogrid for slope stabilization in Canada. Both projects were successfully completed without noticeable deformation. Berg et al (1986) described two retaining wall ayateme (with heights up to 6.0 m) used in Tucson, Arizona and Lithonia, Georgia using precast concrete panels. These walls were constructed in 1984 and 1985, approximately the sane time as the wall described in this paper. Maximum deformation at the top of the walle was about 1.0° to 1.4° depending upon pretension in the geogrid and construction techniques; both walls were judged to be performing well. Comparatively, the rotation of the Calgary wall waa eatimated conservatively at about 2,0° before reconstruction. A number of possible causea that could have been responsible for the distress of the wall were considered and are discussed below: 1, Settlement of Foundation Soils and Backfill The glacial till underlying the wall is heavily overconsolidated and relatively incompressible under the weight of 9 m of fill and would account for less than 4% of the observed settlement. A study conducted by Rivard and Goodwin (1978) concluded that for clay till similar to that at the Calgary wall site and compacted to 95% standard Proctor dry density that the settlement would not exceed 1% of the embankment height. Further, it would be expected that 75% of the settlement would occur during construction. Thus, for a 9 m high fill, post-construction settlement would be expected to be about 22 am which is about 2.4% of the observed settlement. The combination of foundation and £111 settlement represents little more than 6% of the observed settlement. Clearly, the observed settlement pattern greatly exceeds the predicted performance. As discussed previously compaction was inspected by a full-time inspector. However, of the 105 tests conducted only 8 were within 4 m of the wall face. The reagons for thie are unknown but it is speculated that congestion near the face of the wall resulting from the materials and methods used was a contribut- ing cause (the geogrids, the elipform, the Bodkin joint and the two soil types) - This congestion could have hampered compaction efforts near the face of the wali and resulted in sub-standard compaction. This possibility is not inconsistent 494Geosynthetics ‘91 Conference Atlanta, USA with the fact that the settlement 6 m from the wall was about one-half that at the face of the wall although this may partly be associated with loss of lateral support resulting from the rotational movement of the wall facing. Regardless ‘of the source of settlements, there is still a large magnitude of settlement not accounted for in the prediction analysis. Further, the £111 behind the south wall which was placed using the same materiale and methods showed no obvious Signs of settlenent. 2. Internal Erosion 2 ‘The possibility of soil fines being washed from the backfill, through the geogrids, and into the void between the geogrids and the timber lagging and possibly even being transported through the lagging was considered. However, during reconstruction there was no evidence of fines in the void nor were there any fines deposited at the too of the wall. Hence, internal erosion was not considered to be a contributing cause. 3, Saturation of Backfill ‘The post conatruction aite investigation showed that the moisture content of the clay backfill had increased significantly from that measured during construction of the wall. ‘The upper 3 m of the fill appeared to be saturated and waa much softer than when placed. ‘Tha parking lot was graded to a catch basin located 21 m from the wall. ‘The area surrounding the catch basin waa designed to act as a holding pond and extended up to the wall; water would pond in this area after heavy rainfalls and would in time flow through the atorm sewer aystem. The difference in elevation between the paved surface at the wall and at the catch basin was designed to be 200 mm. ‘This difference in elevation was eventually reversed by the subsidence. It is suspected that the subsidence caused failure of the storm sewer leading from the catch basin; runoff water would then seep through the cracke in the asphalt and into the clay backfill. This series of events is consistent with the saturated condition of the clay backfill. It i noted that heavy rainfall (40 mm in 24 hrs) preceded observation of the first signs of distress in September, 1985. The rainfall could have caused ponding which would allow a source of free water into the clay backfill. A series of laboratory teste were conducted on samples of clay backfill recovered during the reconstruction. Samples were compacted to 95% standard Proctor dry density at the placenent moisture content (10.5%) and consolidated in an cedometer under a presaure of 100 kPa to simulate loading at mid-height of the wall. At completion of consolidation, the samples were inundated and settlement of 0.7 to 0.8% of the height of the sample occurred immediately. The dry state of the backfill (about 4% less than optimum) contributed to the observed collapse type settlement. However, this settlement even when combined with foundation and backfill settlement still does not explain the magnitude of the observed settlement. The behaviour of the clay at low confining pressures, e.g. within 3 m of finished grade is expected to be different from that observed in the oedometer tests; the clay may swell in this zone. The loss of lateral support of the soil resulting from swelling and strength loss could lead to rotation of the wall which was not modeled in the oedometer tests and may explain some of the discrepancy between the predicted and observed settlement. An unconsolidated undrained triaxial test conducted on a sample of the clay compacted to 938 Proctor density at a moisture content of 10.5% gave a compressive strength of 375 kPa. A similar sample when saturated gave a compressive strength of only 49 kPa and the moisture content had increased to 18.7%. These test results are consistent with that observed in the field, e.g., the clay gained moisture and lost considerable strength. 492weosynin Atlanta, USA CoNcLUSIONS ‘The distress to the retaining wall is believed to be related to saturation of the clay backfill which was placed 4% dry of optimum. The saturation occurred by ponding of surface runoff near the face of the wall. Laboratory tests have shown that Saturation of the clay backfill placed dry of optimum water content resulted in Significant lose in strength and collapse type settlement. It is postulated that the clay fill behaved as cohesionless backfill until saturated when its strength was Significantly reduced. The geogrids were then subjected to strain to compensate for the resulting loss in strength. The lateral restraint offered by the embedded H-piles may have masked the laceral deformations which went unnoticed for 1.3 years. It is believed that the south wall performed successfully because it was never subjected to the same increase in moisture content. This is likely due to the imposed Surface drainage in that area and the fact that the H-piles at this location were nore deeply embedded than at the north-northwest wall. Considering the lower height of wall they offered much more lateral restraint. REFERENCES Berg, R.R., Bonaparte, R., Anderson, R.P., and Chouery, V.E. “Design, Construct and’ ‘performance of’ Two Tengar Gedqrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls", Proceedinge of the III International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, April, 1986. Bolton Institute of Technology, "Shear Box Tests on Tensar SR2 Embedded in London Clay" report to Netlon Ltd., March, 1982. Busbridge, J.R. "Stabilization of CP Rail Slip at Waterdown, Ontario, Using Tensar Grid", Institute of Civil Engineers Proceedings, Symposium on Polymar Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, London, England, 1984. Netlon Ltd nconstruction of a 7 m High Vertical Faced Soil Wall", Case Study Report, 1983. Rivard, P.J. and Goodwin, T.E., "Geotechnical Characteristics of Compacted Clays for ‘Barth Embankments in the Prairie Provinces", CJG, Vol. 15, 1978, pp. 391-401. Tenear Technical Note, “Guidelines for the Design of Tensar Geoarid Reinforced ‘Soil Retaining Walle", The Tensar Corporation, Georgia, USA, 1986. 493